I saw the realms of God a personal experience of life beyond life

[Alan McDougall]

A greater reality outside our earthly realm

I died and this happened

While I did not have the tunnel experience I had a partial life review and saw both beautiful episodes of my life as well as regretful, embarrassing ones. I did not desire a experience based on my religious indoctrination or in fact any other religious dogma, therefore, in this testimony there is no mention of salvation by any means and beliefs like reincarnation and karma are not addressed.

One early morning while all was still dark I awoke in that state between sleep and wake and the boundaries between my physical self and everything physical around me began to dissolve. Quietness like a soft warm comforting peaceful blanket descended on my sleeping body and mind. I could hear in the background the sweet song of birds softly singing birds and somehow knew their wonderful beautiful voices were in absolute harmony and somehow were reflected the electrons darting in the mind of the Infinite One. Outside leaves rustled in the autumn night and although still indoors on my bed, I could somehow feel the breeze against my skin and the wonderful scent of grass and the fragrances of flowers that permeated the earth.

I became energy left my body and arose above the earth to where the blue became black and looked down upon the earth from the wonder of the glory of the infinite night. I found myself in the presents of a being who appeared to me to be a pulsating “ORB” similar to my state of being then, but much brighter and more energetic. At this time I thought this being might be God.

I had become a bright point “singularity a point of intelligent thinking light” within a Greater Light (Being of Light) that now embraced me and revealed to me later, mind to mind, some things relating to the afterlife, the planet earth and the universe. This Being was the one who communicated with me and took me on the journey into the unknown realms later.

I found myself looking down upon the earth, as if I were viewing it from a port hole of a space ship. The earth was revolving very quickly and stopping over each country, where a stern warning was given to each leader. At first I thought that the "Being of Light" that embraced my essence was God, but found out from him that he was a great angel, with an important message to humanity. At this stage I did not have an ethereal body, just a point of light or a singularity of intense thought.

The Being was a beautiful pulsating ORB of colours pure energy.
As we hovered in space above the earth began to revolve and began to stop over each country or continent with some sort of a warning, the great being kept repeating, “Mere Mortal Man”, “I am not well pleased with you”. I especially remember vividly, when we were hovering over the Asian continent, looking down at India and the regions around it, that some great trouble would come from oceans and effect the Indian subcontinent terribly.

I can now only remember a little what was being conveyed to humanity. Later I began to remembered more and these some of these warnings have already come to pass namely; the great tsunami of 2004, hurricane Katrina and the awful cyclone that hit Burma during 2008, these are just a few events that have come to pass amongst many still to come in the future.

I also recall passing through huge great suns stars and galaxies of blazing glory, observing them, somehow, as we flashed though in an infinitesimal moment. Think of TV Sci Fi where they flash though the universe at warp speed, it was something like that, but without a spaceship, stars, galaxies, clouds of cosmic dust pulsating light of magnetic energy. I was not bound to my physical body’s visual spectrum, but could view the universe in all spectrum's, from microwave to infra red and more.

The ethereal eye is hugely more sensitive than the physical eye and one could peer much deeper into the universe than even the greatest earthly telescope. Try to image this of course is impossible? Instead of space being black, with this heightened sense of vision, the universe lit up with a billion, trillion ever changing colours of breathtaking beauty.

The journey continued as billions of galaxies came and went and somehow, due to our huge unimaginable speed, time itself began to reverse, we were not only on a journey to “somewhere”, we were on a journey to “somewhen”. This “somewhen” was back before the big bang, into the primordial primeval void of zero point energy. “God is the Great Mathematician”, “the Great Scientist” and “the Compassionate Eternal One”

Exploding out of our universe, it began to recede at a colossal rate, first becoming an enormous dark plane, a sort of flat surface. (Like the earth appears to us when we view it from a little height). This beautiful plane , or surface or edge of the universe (of course in reality the universe has no edge or surface just my semantics) twinkled with brilliant a billion trillion multicoloured pulsating aurora Borealis like lights, unimaginably beautiful.

Further and further we raced, until our entire universe started to become a huge orb, then a huge globe until it was only a tiny spot a small singularity. Amongst the eternal infinite foam of numberless other realities, and physical universes that reside it this blazing white light that is the breath of God. I relate this of course in the dimness of my limited mind as these things are unexplainable in human terms or languages.

This light of purest white was limitless, boundless, infinite in any direction, it is where the “Spirit of God is so concentrated and hugely unimaginable pure holy and intense that one could vanish from existence if one tried to enter without permission.

If we remember the “Lords Prayer”, Our “Father” who art in “HEAVEN”, this in the domain if you like where the presence of God is all most tangible, the highest state of pure inexhaustibly indestructible energy it is were God lives, this might seem an oxymoron , that God is also omnipresent, but here his is inconceivable.” In my “Fathers House” are many mansions. It is the “GreatOcean” of all Existence the source of all creation, and all the great rivers of life flow into it. It is the experience that millions of mystics over time have tried to obtain , but all in vain , no matter what they claim.

Hovering quietly, in the Infinite Sacred silence blanketed by the peace and love of this purest stillness of holy white light I wondered and then enquired as to where we where? In my inner self I knew it could only be what, I heard a voiceless voice was saying to me, “you are standing in the “Breath of God” also called the “Holy Spirit”

We were in a place of pure composite white light outside of normal material space and time, into ethereal realms and higher dimensions of living

Suddenly and I was no longer aware of where I was until a warm golden light encompassed me about and I knew I was in that eternal place outside time or space. Indeed, I now dwelt in the everlasting infinite moment. Marvellous extraordinary insights flashed into my mind and I was able with a new godlike understanding to comprehend all knowledge. I seemed to know all the mysteries of existence, just as if

I were God. It was clear to me then that the universe was mostly good and that evil will never prevail against the light. Beautifully interconnectivity into one glorious harmony whole is the final aim of our universe. “This is still a work in progress”. Evil was allowed in the physical realms so that people can use their free will to love God and their fellow beings as they love themselves

I felt the warmth of the eternal fire, within the spirit of my being and I was filled by it with a sustained sense of exultation, immense joy, peace, rapture and sublime bliss. My awareness or consciousness expanding until it encompassed the entire universe and all existence. While I knew I was not God, and that I was only bright tiny facet of the unimaginably beautiful diamond that we call God.

episodes It was like riding on the shoulders of God ,looking out at the universe with his eyes and understanding everything from time immemorial, to the present, into the unimaginable far future. Everything at once in an instant, but also through all of eternity, both somehow, at once. Time became meaningless and did dot flow in the linear way it did in the physical realms.

An intellectual illumination beyond any description overflowed my mind and. I knew then that the will of Gods was for all humanity to be immortal and possessed eternal life. “Death was not the natural order of Gods creation” and this mystery of life, death and evil remain a mystery. The crucial plan of the universe was for the good of all that dwelt within its brilliant unimaginable beautiful wonderful and vast golden glorious boarders.

The heavens declared the glory of Gods handiwork and his creation is so wonderful that I have no words in the English language to describe it. Our mortal bodies are wonderfully knit together a work of infinite precision and meticulous creativity by the awesome intellect of God, and our human brain a prime example of the infinite mind of God. Our mortal bodies, however, are not in the image of God. It is our spirit or soul that mirrors his image and thus God made man to think like Him be it in a lesser way. God Imagined man (imagine-man.)

The concept of time vanished and I seem to exist in an everlasting moment. The physical universe was indeed a most precious jewel in the mind of God. God created time, he is the Timekeeper if you like, he has a sort of a stop watch, starting at the Alpha moment and stopping at the Omega moment, the Beginning and End. I saw in my “minds eye” a huge clock.

Something like a doomsday clock, it had only a second hand and this hand was turning towards the top of the hour, but it would advance clockwise and reverse anticlockwise, some times advancing fifteen seconds and retreating ten, why I think when the second hand finally reaches the top of the hour something catastrophic and cataclysmic is going to happen?

The greatest emotion there was the feeling of unconditional all encompassing eternal love by our Creator combined with all the joyful beings of goodness and light in this everlasting pure domain of light and life. Every living thing is important to God, not only human souls are loved by God. God also loves animals and their souls return to him when they die. We sang there all together in perfect harmony the creation song of Gods existence and eternal mystery.

Plants are living things and have great group mind and souls as do the fishes of the sea, and plankton. The great whales have highly advanced minds and souls and they are also beings that God blessed when he created our earth. There is a pet heaven, where all or beloved pets frolic joyfully, just waiting for us to join them. The little minds and souls do not comprehend all our thoughts, but we can communicate with telepathy, just like we will do with other human souls in heaven.

My soul awareness or consciousness expanded until it filled the whole universe and beyond and in this “brief” glorious moment I became everything, I was “Infinite Existence”

This timeless reality was so very much more real than the three-dimensional reality we experience on earth. In this state, my mind was clear as crystal, I could feel an incredible energy and power coursing through me in this new wonderful indescribable time place. There seem to be nothing but a sense of knowing, being and loving.

A strange thing was that in this dimension one could alternate between the subjective and objective any time at will .Oh! How my soul delighted then and how reluctant I was to return to the bleak mundane existence of my earthly life. Reflecting back on my early life I wondered how many moments or days of subjoin on earth in my mortal body had being truly happy. We never experience the joy of this no happiness, while on earth with mortal bodies.

Was this death? No it was brilliant exhilarating living; I was alive in a sense that I have never being I had become one vital aspect in the great all of existence. An inexpressible interconnectedness to wonderful a mysterious and loving oneness but always retaining my own precious unique identity

Was I now in the Land of the Dead?, no I had left that behind there was no need to kill and consume other living things, energy was constant the arrow of time did not move there was no entropy and the battery energizing my soul was full of inexhaustible energy my new form a body of “eternal light” Communication between beings also use this light by, changing, and merging and flashing lights towards other souls in a beauty of “light talking”

The ethereal body has all senses of the material body and more, indeed there are many additional senses, that must be learned when we pass over. I could hear, smell, feel, sleep and even eat juicy apples, but one does not need to eat to get energy. I looked carefully at this body it was formed outwardly like the physical body, but semi translucent and shimmering in concert with the emotions I was feeling, something a ghostly chameleon.

The experience of merging with the light of God is like having your body explode in a pleasant way and becoming a million different atoms. Each atom can think its own thoughts and have its own feelings. You feel all at once what it feels like to be everything and everybody
suddenly; we burst into another light dimension, outside the physical dimensions, into the ethereal realms of a whole new reality.

There I saw a strange world with no sun or stars in the sky, just pulsating lights in the myriads of colours not known indeed impossible spectrum's the physical eyes I thought this is the “ City Of God” and is it lit up and sustained by his by his light.

At first sight this strange world appeared similar to our physical earth, but, in this higher vibration, more colourful, more beautiful, more amazing. I saw plants, trees, mountains, lakes, animals, and shimmering crystal-like buildings, some very large and ornate. I saw beings moving about, light beings, going about their daily lives.

They don't have physical bodies like us, but they are distinct translucent fields of energy, they have the ability to alter their outer appearance and take on the form of a human physical body, but they remain translucent and shimmering in appearance. They don't walk, they float. They have lives much like ours, but without the struggles and sorrows. There are artists, musicians, dancers, singers, inventors, builders, healers, creators of miraculous things; co-creators with Gods beautiful inexhaustible energy. Indeed this place was close to the Christian concept of heaven.


I wondered why this world appeared at first hand looked so much like our earthly reality, albeit more beautiful. The answer it that when a person dies especially suddenly if they were to awaken on the other side and see it as it really is, just orbs of light shape shifting, atoms and fundamental particles coming together and parting lights flashing, they will be frightened and confused out of their mind. So they are slowly eased into these new dimensions, the first heaven almost a copy of a beautiful earth with which they are familiar and as these souls learn and evolve they are prepared for the next realm without any shock to their psyche.

Children of various ages were all around playing joyfully, people aged to about perfect maturity and stopped, although different, there did not seem to differ by race or colour as we do on earth. Children who pass over to heaven take on the same age they had at the time of their dying and then continue to grow or a better word mature until the reach the point of perfection Every person was made out of translucent light, and the light from each person constantly changes, later I found out this was one method of communication.

We stopped off on this world and I found myself in a beautiful translucent marble like building with many beautiful pillars something like the Geek Parthenon, many beings were milling about, was it a sort of a weigh station or great library or meeting place or place to congregate for special celebrations or events. I think it was there for all these reasons.

I thought about abortion and knew God understands if the woman has been violated soul of, the potential human baby just returns to God. God frowns on anyone aborting for selfish reasons, this is murder. A soul enters the mother’s womb at the very moment of conception and not at three to six weeks as many people think.

Many of the scenes places and angelic beings were the same ones I could so easily see as a child, I had a sort of mystical eye and could see through portals and vortexes a little boy, but I lost most of this when I became an adult.

Was it possible to see God, yes God can manifest an aspect of his greater Being to us, and what I saw was inconceivably, unspeakably, awesome a huge “Orb” of ever-changing lights flashing through a trillion billion spectrum's, frightening and awesome in its beauty and the best word I can find to define what I saw was “MAJESTIC”.

This time fragment or aspect of the Infinite Divine God was like a great golden sun with thousands of planets revolved around him all in the same orbit. Who populated these worlds and what the purpose? I do not know, but I will find out when I pass into glory forever. Of course God is not confined to that one place but it seemed to be something like the Holy Of Holies in the Hebrew Temple. Could I have access to this place?

This made me really think about what of significance I had done during my life. Then I remembered my wife, children grandchildren, parents, siblings, relatives , friends and all the learning and wisdom I had gained in my short existence in this earthly dimension and it all had meaning and purpose and I knew I had not lived in vain, but will leave behind a legacy of love when I die.

To us our universe is supposedly 15 billion years old, but in the mind of God the Infinite Eternal, it has only existed for a tiny moment a blink in his great eyes.

The light of God was golden like the setting or rising sun out of it flowing out from the infinite mind of God, who is the Life and cause of existence. I heard him speaking to me and everything flashed in and out of my mind by this huge voiceless voice that filled all existence with the primordial energy.

It was the most beautiful music of God that sustains the universe. GOD is the vibrations of all existence

I remembered the Bible Isaiah stating the Lion will eat grass and a little child will lead him, the wolf will lay down with the lamb, there will no longer be death sorrow or loneness, and every tear will be wiped clear and people will sing with angels and God will join in with his awesome mighty voice of infinite beauty, filling all of existence and his voice will banish evil, fear and suffering forever. His voice is the voice of “LIFE”

“There a total mystical union with the divine” The norm is the union between multiple souls or between similar souls. Perhaps the greatest physical ecstasy known to humanity is sex and “something like this continues in the next life” but it is always based on love as no lust exists in the afterlife. It in like really getting inside the totally of another welcoming being. Like minds and souls join in glorious revolving Mandalay of ever changing lights a glory of intense euphoric “Oneness”. Of course there is fun and games in heaven, heaven is not about labour but about living in love and peace and learning

In heaven, we are free to enjoy each other by totally giving of our souls, spirits and minds in true altruistic (unselfish) love, a merging of such unimaginable wonder, that our present minds and bodies could not comprehend it.

However, the union with the God is the place of infinite love and light, is beyond description in its wonder. Does everyone just enter there no? The doorkeeper to God and union with him is the “Great Prince of Peace”
“LOVE, PEACE, SECURITY, JOY AND HAPPINESS BEST DESCRIBED THE SAFETY IN THE ARMS OF GOD”

I continued to experiencing sustained sense of vibrant happiness beyond description together with unimaginable joy, peace and glory.

Thinking about this state of blissful rapture later I realized that God would not let souls continually remain in this state of bliss, as life, learning and purpose continues after we die and leave the earth. Death is not the end of life but the doorway into endless life

These is no such thing as boredom, because a process of continual learning and hopefully graduation to higher heavens There is an instant access and pooling of all knowledge by telepathy between all the minds in the universe, but of course even in heaven privacy is respected. In addition, it is possible to communicate in this manner with the simple innocent minds of our passed over beloved pets and all creatures big and small. More in feelings of love, appreciation and emotion than words.

By telepathy, teleportation, etc we will have instant access to all our beloved ones, throughout creation, no matter how far they are from us, by this exiting means. Wonderful is it not?

Therefore, there is no such thing as separation, loneliness, tears, sorrow, and sickness and finally there is victory over death itself. Just think of where you want to go or who you want to be with and you are there. The use of the terms telepathy and teleportation are not really correct but the nearest words ii can find.

In reality there is no such thing as remoteness or distant just billions of portals, doorways into parallel existences. With otherworldly eyes these doorways can be seen and we learn how to use them, like some huge underground rail road system.

From heaven we are able to hear in our minds the sorrow of loved ones still on earth who can not come to terms or understand or sometimes unexpected death. So” if we want to” one can make an effort to contact our loved ones still on earth by entering their dreams, thoughts, making them sense our presence, in various ways such as a flower, feather , smell or, even fragrances. That, hopefully make them aware, although feeling that we are far away, in reality we are just a hand stretch away.

There are specially gifted people on earth that can pick up our thoughts thought from the heavenly planes and relay them to the grieving relatives or friends. When we are in heaven we can also make people on earth meet each other so any urgent message from heaven is given to the correct person. This might seem just a coincidence at the time, but this link is arranged from the heavenly realms

Would all humanity no matter how depraved and evil in life on death go to these higher beautiful heavily planes immediately after their demise? No, absolutely not! Even in heaven there are conditions and accountability.

If this was what happens in heaven one would be constantly bombarded by evil thoughts (as the means of communication was telepathy) and heaven would become a most heavenly place. So it is logical and obviously that God cannot permit this to happen.

Yes evil monstrous beings such as Hitler and his type are cast into outer darkness, as the darkness of true evil can never ever penetrate the light of God. The book of life, which is contained as memories in the temporal lobe of our brain, are played off, like a video recording on death before God. This is called the life review by near death experiences. Imagine the life review of a person like Hitler?

Are there similar experiences or pleasures exist in the spiritual realm as we do with our mortal bodies while on earth such as, good food, mortal love touch, taste, smell, sight, sex, would this all be lost when we took on ethereal or spiritual bodies? What about our friends, family, lovers, soul mates, travel, homes etc, etc, etc what about boundaries of conduct was anything forbidden if sin was abolished??

The reply came in a revelation that because there would no longer be evil or sin in the heavenly realms, as we progress, learn and become wiser, we are given increasing free will until at the highest vibratory level of purest perfection we are given absolute free will and everything becomes permissible. The pleasures of

Carnality do not exist but a similar soul pleasures ruled by altruist love is wonderfully experienced. Then we will be able to experience anything we desire such as controlled ecstasy, bliss and sublime joy, by mingling in love, merging completely into a cosmic mind to enjoy and relish eternal life with God and all other beings of composite white light.

Everything there is much much more intense, sustained and beautiful complete and wonderful than anything we could remotely liken to on the earthly plane. It is indeed very very exiting! Totally beyond what I had imagined. Grass, trees, flowers, plants are not subject to death and everything is made out of this translucent light. All living things are not biological but made out of inexhaustible indestructible energy.

Here time as we know it did not exist, one could rest in a moment or for a thousand years, or coexist in multiple moments at the same time, past, present and future , all existing somehow like a great multi-dimensional movie, all the frames unravelled into which one could jump from frame to frame, in and out of at will. Distance is meaningless as billions of higher or lower realms or planes were only separated by thin veil vortex or port into another reality. Each new dimension was another new universe.

As wave after wave of revelation swept through my whole being the wonder and joy of it all was almost too much for me stand or comprehend. I knew the will of God for existing was to ever progress upwards through many dimensions (heavens) towards the light of the ultimate absolute reality (which is God) while always retaining our blessed uniqueness.

We would then still be ourselves but also have access to the infinite knowledge power and presence of the creator God as we finally withdraw once again into ourselves. It is a matter of progression or regression and this depends on each soul.

I heard the soft voice (God) speaking directly into my mind some of the deepest mysteries of existence and creation. Much to my disappointment I could only recall a little, but what I recall I have included in this document. As the years have past I have slowly remembered more and more, but of course there are simply revelations so profound that my human brain could never contain them.

There are angels great and less great, they are beings of light that inhabit all of Gods creation. Just like earthly people they have different characters and each is assigned a task. Sometimes they come to gather in a huge crown of glowing billions, singing the praises of God in a heavily chorus of unimaginable beauty. Their songs of joy and peace reverberate out into the universe giving life and love where it is needed.

Each person of good character has their own guardian angel, which most of us are not aware of. They are the messengers to humanity bringing word of encouragement as well as warning when necessary.

If you want to know the name of your angel clear your mind, and then ask your angel, what is your name? The very first name that popped into your mind is the name of your angel. Think about events in your life when you were helped by some stranger, who appeared as a normal person, this could have being your angel helping you. Intuitions to go somewhere or not go somewhere, unease about something are often strong prompting from your angels.

There might at times be as many angels walking on earth as there are people. Angels can take on any form, if your idea of an angel is of a huge majestic being with great wings, your angel might manifest himself/herself to you like that. Angels do not really have gender like humans.


Some of the future events coming to planet earth were revealed and shown to me. Humanity would have to migrate from planet earth into the universe, as the earth’s resources were finite. No nuclear holocaust would obliterate earth and the greatest threat was the population explosion. In addition, the future was not set in stone and the divisions taken by a person or a nation could alter the outcome of the future.

The highest attribute any person can have is wisdom and the wisdom to do things wisely. Graceful love must abound the joyful realities of multiple heavenly glories.

There is a time coming when God will intervene in the affairs of humanity and the great monotheistic religions have belief about this that borders on the truth of what is going to happen. Deep down we all know humanity cannot continue much longer on the path of destruction it now follows

The future only needs one good person to make a colossal difference towards the ultimate good of humanity. The reverse is unfortunately also the case and this might be the explanation for the enigma for the existence of evil. Although our heritage is very important to us all it is much more important to leave a positive legacy.

The loss of moral absolutes was sadness to the divine and the restoration of these was of paramount important if humankind was to escape extinction. All persons should know they will ultimately have to account to the divine for what they have done while on their journey of life, as mere mortal beings while on planet earth. In the end, however, good will prevail in the universe and evil banished into outer darkness forever.

The mystery of evil was an inscrutable mystery beyond the understanding of any person. All things process or regress, in cycles of spiritual learning and metamorphosis towards the light.

The universe is not infinite or eternal; it is a creation of God the work of the sublime intellect beyond human comprehension. It had a beginning and it will have and end

Our physical earthly realm is a bleak shadow when compared even to the least beautiful heavens.

But our physical earthly reality is unimaginably beautiful when compared to some cold dark planes These entities residing in these lower realms have their free will restricted to a greater and greater degree as one descend into the abysmal dark of the lowest realm , which we call hell.

At these lower dimensions time moves slower and increasingly slower the lower the realm, indeed time is the enemy there and each moment is stretched out. At the lowest in the abysmal thick cold I could feel an entity of horrifying evil, this being seemed to consist of black tar. Whatever it was it was not of human origin.

The words of my childhood “Look upon a falling star and make a wish came into my mind, and in the ethereal realms this is factual, but there is no need to wait for a star to fall, wish what you want or think carefully and you create it with your mind. Want to go somewhere or see someone, wish for it and you are there with them.

Everything lives at a much greater level I saw my beloved dog bully and wept when I held him, smelled his doggy smell and felt his love for me as I filled him with my love, at last I knew what his little beautiful soul and mind was saying and we communed in joyful wonder.

Each person will be accountable for what was done by them done while on earth. We all unlike Hitler have some light and goodness within us and this will enable us to perpetrate the light of God. One candle dispels the darkness. Anyone reading this testimony will definitely not be going into outer darkness but will inherit the kingdom of God.

The spirits of all animals will return to God from whence they had come God loves them dearly. The abuse of children will face the full wrath of God and it would be better for this type of person to have never been born.

In my earthly life I have plunged the depths of darkness’, despair desolation and for anyone to tell me there is a hell worse than this was a great offence to me. But now I knew the consequences and the accountability of life and there were hells so terrible that the Christian hell was a kiddies teddies bears picnic by comparison. I saw beings so black, so dark, so cold so evil, so depraved and hideous dwelling in this horror. They were not of human origin, but monstrous beasts of unspeakable evil from elsewhere in the universe and their names were the “Dark Ones” They consisted of Black Light and are the enemies of God and they strive to smother the warm light of God, with their black light of cold. They drain off life into themselves and can only continue to exist by doing this.

I saw the horror of this on a planet, a village much like a village on earth, the village was lit up and a little girl looked at me with sad eyes and I saw life drain out of her and her eyes slowly dimming until the death of cold overtook her. This is the battle for our universe our universe of Light and Dark. Look out at the night sky, what do you see? A sky mostly dark with some light in this potentially infinite dark?

The universe is populated with the children of light the children of God and the dark ones the rebellious.

Is there a hell yes hell is separation from God there are hells so horrifying that the Christian concept of hell is a holiday picnic by comparison, would the occupants remain there forever, I do not know, maybe God would be kind enough to annihilate the souls of the unredeemable reprobate depraved
During one of my visions of the night

I was transported to a colossal cavern somewhere deep in the earth and saw countless souls just waiting in a place that seemed to me to be lit by a dim red light. Was this, limbo or something else? I do not know. Perhaps this is the place the evil dead go to wait for the final Day of Judgement by God?

While one is in the void of grey they can still seek the light and escape, but if they have become so depraved in life like Hitler had I think they descend in black darkness and must remain in this terrible place of fear, desolation and horror, of their own making forever. Therefore, they are not really judged by God but convict "themselves" by refusing to adhere to the moral absolutes of God. God puts no one in hell they put themselves there by refusing to listen to his holy voice while in life.

It is awesome to think that the dimension discussed in this testimony is only the first of many that the spirit has to travel before finally merging and submerging with the infinite almighty. We would then have the unbelievable of direct access to the infinite mind of God (Jacobs Ladder).

Indeed the creation of our glorious universe was an intelligent act of ominificent unimaginable indescribable beauty.

In the soft quite of night I contemplated on all I has seen, all I had heard, all the knowledge I had received, the beauty love and light, the dark , ugly and hate. I tried to express to find one word that could express the greatness of existence the greatness of creation and finally the wonder that is Almighty God

One word slowly filled my mind simply put but deeply pondered I could only express that inconceivable existence is beyond
“ ENORMITY”

Revelation about how poorly we use or understand our bodies, how great a potential instrument it is and the great gift by God for allowing us to inhabit such a wonderful vehicle of life

Your body as an instrument of unimaginable precision

Given a lesson on how to really utilize my body, I became s aware of the intensity of colours unimaginably beautiful and countless not normally observed, with new eyes everything, blazed in high definition, colors bright and beautiful, flowers shimmering living light of a million hues, all thing living in their unique harmonious vibrations.

We go around deaf with ears that only hear what we want them to hear. Battered by noises God did not design them for the beauty of sound is lost. But humming in the dark I could hear the angels join in with a host or chorus of heavily song.

Everything sang I could see the colours of music, I could hear and fell the caress of the sound of smell the taste of music and colours, the whole body absorbed vibrations of life much more intensely than our normal grey like dim perception of the wonder all around us the beauty of the world


I knew then that I had never come remotely close to knowing what an almost infinite precise instrument my whole body really was. It is not only the brain that perceives reality; each cell is individual aware parts of my body.

It was possible to switch to seeing with my ears, tasting with my eyes, listening with my sense of taste, smell and feel. Every atom of you physical body harmonizes together, as an intelligent member of your composite living being.

Inepisodes this heightened state of awareness I saw everything in the minutest detail, things that I formally overlooked or just shrugged off as an important now rang out as messages and lesson from the world and the universe. Observing. Carefully I began to see and know the future, go back to scenes of the past like the crucifixion .aware that my loved ones were in trouble get warning to avoid events and suggestion to go or not go to places. Know which people to interact with and which to not. Know who is truthful and who is not.

We have never learned how to utilize the amazing sensory organ that is our entire body. In this state of awareness I could stand still and hear the chirp of a billion birds which I knew was quantum particle flashing in the mind of God. They sing the song of existence and creation and we are deaf to their beautiful song and its real meaning.

Learning to use by whole body, as one great sensory instrument, I could perceive things that normally go completely unnoticed. Looking carefully with all my combined bodily senses I could read the messages from the universe all around me. I could see things as minute as a vibrating electron, or the great expanding universe, existence told me of the past, present and future. If we only observed at everything, taste, smell, feel , hear, breathe, see and use our innate psychic intuitive ability, nothing would overtake us as a complete surprise as we become one with all existence and hear the song of creation all around usual the time.

People became open books to me as I could hear in my mind every word they were thinking, and I had to close my mind against the cacophony of meaningless babble, until I could filter it out and hear the beauty of glorious minds all around me, both human and animal. I had to retreat in shock and horror from the dark bleakness from real evil thoughts that sometimes entered my mind. And learn to accept and embrace all that is beautiful and loving about our beautiful blue water planet and the unimaginable wonder of the universe and the super universe from out of which it was born.

My body, mind, soul and spirit as stilled my inner being to really hear, feel, see taste smell and merge with the Super- Consciousness, began to expand in such unimaginable exhilaration that my finite mind and self embraced all of existence and I saw and understood everything just like God did.


In what we call our normal waking state we are really sleeping in a dormant hibernating like way. But with practice one can awaken to a much greater degree than is the norm for many of us.


But maybe we must travel through the dark valleys of utter hopeless like I did; to really relish and savour the unbelievable glory that awaits us. Before we exit this life we should have reached a place of contentment, peace and love. Then the transition is easy smooth exiting a wonder beyond words, like a great holiday that embraces so much beautiful unknowns that the mind is filled with the essences and fragrances of new lands, planets and universes, both physical and spiritual way out beyond any wildest speculations about the afterlife

g destruction and kill and words rightly thought out can heal, bring peace, love, forgiveness and life.

God created everything by the words from his mind
By carefully what you say, as you can never retract a word wrongly cruelly spoken

The physical universe

All information, both past, present, and future, exists in the ““Superconsciousness”.” The “Superconsciousness” (or Collective Mind) transcends time and space and with diligent practice, is consciously accessible from the deep state of awareness.

Sentient“ intelligent beings in the universe are interconnected in what I call the Superconsciousness” this is not God, it is where information comes from for all accurate predictions and visions, whether auditory, visual, or emotional. It encompasses all that is and all that will be in our universe. In truth, it is where our thoughts go to and come from.

We only perceive these whispering thoughts in our brain and usually take little notice of them but we should try to be more aware and connect with this source of universal knowledge for the benefit of humankind, we have learned to filter out them to our disadvantage.

I see it as something similar to the hive mind of the bee or ant but that, which connects all higher beings in one consciousness throughout the universe. I speculate this “Superconsciousness” is finite consisting of finite albeit highly intelligent life forms throughout the universe and “is not the infinite creator God” but one of his creations. A sort of galactic, or universal internet, think how useful this source would be if only we could gain access to it when we want to?

Maybe the universe is a sleeping giant a sort colossal being and we are just neurons within it, but I don’t really like this idea of a living evolving intelligent universe
The physical universe is unimaginably beautiful a crown diamond the most precious jewel in of Gods crown his achievement a creation with for he was well pleased, exploding with life and light. These are some of the heavens that declare the glory of God

Strange world revolving around other stars within other galaxies, are painted in a myriad of colors unknown and unseen of earth blazed, flashed, revolved in glorious maelstroms like colossal aurora borealis in such glory in the heavily planes and the physical universe that would have blinded human eyes.

Cerulean clouds of energy rolled and merged changing into aubergine, incarnadine and green viridity, gladeen, misord, bladgreed, blueploom, surgrrezeing, astromosterdram, these words for some of these colors just entered my mind and I remembered then for this document

“Plasma Beings” using magnetic energy in beautiful alabaster robes, joined our journey and raced across the ethereal realms with us like dolphins do on earth. I remembered a story I had read as a child “I am the magnetic body electric” I had this type of body for too short a time (of course there is no concept of time, but is the best word here)

There are plasma beings Dwellers on the furnaces of the suns, to them the inferno we call the surface of a sun or star is cool life giving warmth. They survive on magnetic energy.

I went amongst the stars, saw their mighty glory and glorious multi-colored planets, and observed great beings with huge gossamer wings that were a million kilometers from wingtip to wingtip, which sailed on radiant light in the dark oceans of space that makes up most of the universe.

Some worlds were so similar to earth that at first I thought I was looking at earth or a city of earth. But a closer look revealed odd differences, the gait of the beings, their transport vehicles all differed minutely.

On other world the entities were so odd so different that I thought they were just part of the background a rock or a long thin dark looking tree, but they are highly evolved sentient beings like us.

Size is relative and there are huge entities and entities unimaginable small, most very small life form are hive based minds and at the hive level sentient and intelligent with purpose.

Some lived at a much slower rate than humans, their year a billion years compared to ours. They do not know we exist; we are fleeting vibrating electrons to them.

Far in the utter dark of space dark worlds exist in the void remote from any other are worlds hanging alone in the abysmal cold of absolute zero. But are these worlds dead and void of life? No beings exist on them and they live so slowly that the life of the universe is but a day to them. To them ice is a raging inferno.

Other beings come into existence like a fundamental particle, live and die in one infinitesimal moment, to small for our best instrument to measure, but they are intelligent living beings like us.

The creation of our physical universe was spoken to me in these few profound mighty words

New creation started again. (The infinite eternal cycle of existence)
The colossal infinite mind and intellect of the Ever Existing One looked out at a new empty infinite dark void, became aware and out at the dark void of nothing, contemplated and said “let there be light” As I Am boundless I will create something with the potential to become like myself and eternal. He decided to create homes (beautiful blue water worlds) and beautiful life, from the substance of the inexhaustible energy of the many dimensions of his being.

The Lord created me in the beginning of his works, before all else, when he set the heavens in their place, I was there, before he made the earth, I was his darling child and played the creation game, in eternal joy with him. I was his craftsman and his companion and delight. Wisdom and word is my name and I was with him before all creation. He is the ancient of days and I am his eternal son.

We together created mighty superstrings and weaved them together with colossal strands of energetic light coloured in beautiful magnificent opalescence into the very fabric of reality and a new unimaginably beautiful universe was born in glory and delight.

[NikolaiI]

Interesting. How and why do you think you had this experience? Also, was this one time? A first? And how long did it last? And did you come back to normal consciousness?

I can relate to some of the things you say. I agree that God is infinite, transcendental reality. The references to Christianity, Christian myths, and messages make your post seem strange to me, but other parts do not. Anyway, quite a long post! I'm afraid I didn't read it all, but what I did read was interesting.

I've had an experience somewhat similar to yours in terms of meaning, but different it seems in the sense that yours had references to Christianity, while mine was with Buddhism. By this I mean references, etc. You use some Christian ideas and references in your description of your experience.

[The Atheist]

I see you've been trying to sell the story (http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_chat/my_near_death_experience_for_anyone_to_read-t29780.0.html;msg241629)for some time.

Is it your own work?

Near death experiences are reasonably well understood (http://science.howstuffworks.com/near-death-experience.htm)phenomena.

[Alan McDougall]

I see you've been trying to sell the story (http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_chat/my_near_death_experience_for_anyone_to_read-t29780.0.html;msg241629)for some time.

Is it your own work?

Near death experiences are reasonably well understood (http://science.howstuffworks.com/near-death-experience.htm)phenomena.

Hi Atheist I have never tried to sell any of my work. I also understand your atheism in light of your graphic avatar.

Your avatar is a reflection of the sorry misuse of the precious free will god has given us all. God is love man is a duality

NikolaiI

What I posted is just a part of my essay as I could not fit it all within the 50 000 character restriction of this forum

It relates to experiences from the time I was a child until now, I wrote the whole thing myself, Atheists suggesting of me plagiarising IS ANNOYING to say the least

What I posted is composite of various experiences I have had over the years brought on by unspeakable suffering I personally experienced in my life.

Take some time to read it please and then I will return with the rest of the essay!!

Atheism is faith based just as any other belief system is. I do not belong to any religious belief and my understanding of the Divine Infinite has evolved from belief to knowledge.

The last thing I want to get involved in is religious debate in this forum I am a member of a philosophical forum and I debate that kind of thing there

I am an Engineer not an English major and would welcome any guidance to improve my writings

[AimusSage]

Your avatar is a reflection of the sorry misuse of the precious free will god has given us all. God is love man is a duality
Be nice now, unlike you, his signature contains links to charities that try to give food to the poor.

[Alan McDougall]

Be nice now, unlike you, his signature contains links to charities that try to give food to the poor.

You misunderstood my comment, I was agreeing with Atheist not being nasty. I have the exact same problem with religion :)

Alan

[AimusSage]

You misunderstood my comment, I was agreeing with Atheist not being nasty. I have the exact same problem with religion :)

Alan
No, I understood just fine. :)

[Buh4Bee]

There is a book called "Of Water and the Spirit" by Malidoma Patrice Some and it speaks of such alternative worlds or dimensions as you describe in your own experience. The author experiences such alternative worlds through the initiation rituals of becoming an African shaman. I do not doubt that you may have experienced something great.

[NikolaiI]

Aw :( why the unspeakable suffering?

[The Atheist]

Hi Atheist I have never tried to sell any of my work.

It was meant metaphorically - I see you've posted the same in several places.


I also understand your atheism in light of your graphic avatar.

No, you clearly don't understand at all. The avatar and poverty have nothing whatsoever to do with my atheism.


Your avatar is a reflection of the sorry misuse of the precious free will god has given us all. God is love man is a duality

That may be what you see, but I couldn't agree less.


...Atheists suggesting of me plagiarising IS ANNOYING to say the least

Where did I suggest plagiarism?

You seem to be seeing things which aren't there.


Atheism is faith based just as any other belief system is.

Sorry, but this is palpably incorrect. "I do not believe in god/s" carries no faith whatsoever.

So far, you've been completely wrong about my atheism, you've seen a mention of plagiarism which doesn't exist and you clearly have no idea what "atheism" means. Hint: it isn't a belief system, it's a lack of belief.

Have another go.

[islandclimber]

I suppose you could say atheism is faith based in that one has faith in the non-existence of any higher power, but this argument is stretch at best... maybe due to many atheists being followers of science there is a level of faith that must be placed in science... but it is not even close to the same thing as faith in God...

[The Atheist]

I suppose you could say atheism is faith based in that one has faith in the non-existence of any higher power, but this argument is stretch at best...

It's also wrong, because atheism does not indicate a belief in non-existence of god/s, just a lack of belief in them.

Believing god/s do not exist would be classed as string atheism in 2009-speak, but even then, given the overwhelming evidence that reality really exists, it doesn't require that much faith.


maybe due to many atheists being followers of science there is a level of faith that must be placed in science... but it is not even close to the same thing as faith in God...

I think this is a bad example as well, because while atheists may have faith in science (and as you note, it's not the same kind of faith) it isn't essential.

[trueromantic]

edited

[trueromantic]

I like the line 'the ethereal eye is hugely more sensetive than the common eye'; sounds like you entered a trance accidentally.
The especific teaching and moral transformation you gained from the experience are what I think seperate it from the common near death experience or thespeaking in tounges kind of spiritualism. In terms of presentation, the entheos could have come across as effete but somehow didnt, some of the details were quite poetic such as the heavenly parthenon meeting house.
Experiencing it must have been incredible, reading it was, but I guess they say truth is stanger than fiction. :)

[Alan McDougall]

Much of it was deliberate induced altered states of consciousness, but not drug induced. I also had a profound near death event due a almost successful attempt at suicide due to my depressed state at the time

Continued

What is reality and who are we really?

The essential complete you, or your whole real essence, is a field of awareness that interacts with its own self (Soul) and then becomes both mind/brain and body. In other words, you are consciousness or spirit, which then conceives, constructs, governs, and becomes the mind/brain and the body. The real you are inseparable from the patterns of intelligence that permeate every fibre of creation.

At the deepest level of existence, you are an infinite eternal Being, and you are nowhere and everywhere at the same time. There is no other “you” than the entire cosmos. The God + cosmic mind create the physical universe, and the personal mind/brain (Soul) experiences the physical universe. But in truth, the cosmic mind and our personal mind are both permeated by “God the Infinite Consciousness”. “God the Infinite Consciousness” is our source, and all manifestation is inherent within it.

“God the Infinite Consciousness” observing itself creates the notion of observer, or the soul; the process of observation, or the mind; and that which is observed, or the body and the world.

The observer and the observed create relationships between themselves; this is space. The movement of these relationships creates events; this is time. But all these are none other than the “God the Infinite Consciousness” itself.

In other words, we are “God the Infinite Consciousness” with a “localized point of view” An aspect or facet of the great reality we call God. And yet our whole system of thought divides the “Great Observer God” from the observed us; it divides the “God the Infinite Consciousness” into a world of objects separated by space and time.

The “the intellect of the brain” imprisons us momentararly in a cage of fictitious images, a web of space, time, and causation. As a result, we lose touch with the true nature of our reality, which is powerful, boundless, immortal, and free.

The intellect of the brain”. Mistakes the image of reality for reality itself. It squeezes the soul into the volume of a body, in the span of a lifetime, and now the spell of mortality is cast. The image of the self overshadows the unbounded Self, and we feel cut off or disconnected from “God the Infinite Consciousness”, our source.

The real you are a non-material soul and therefore not subject to the limitations of space, time, matter, and causation. The soul, the spirit, the essential you, is beyond all that. In this very moment, you are surrounded by a pure consciousness. Pure consciousness illuminates and animates your mind and body, and it is powerful, nourishing, invincible, unbounded, and free. Pure consciousness, “God the Infinite

Eternal Spirit”, animates and sustains everything in existence, which means it is omniscient (all knowing), omnipresent (present in all locations simultaneously), and omnipotent (all powerful). “And when we learn and grow and evolve into understanding we shall be all those things also, indeed co- creators with God.

know we are all a continuum of conscious energy like a keyboard from the slow waves of the physical through the electromagnetic spectrum all the way into the highest frequency waves of spirit, so I shall continue to play my whole keyboard with every blessed cell in my body and with my whole heart and mind until it is so. So be it!

Similarly the uncertainty in the predictability of the actions of quantum particles like electrons indicates the presence of self awareness/consciousness in them! All matter finally boils down to these quantum particles. So, does this mean that universe is self aware and this awareness is spread across all things that make up this universe and at all levels starting from the quantum particles to the universe itself, and universe is is the highest level of awareness? not only me, you, but not everything in the universe is self aware?

The universe is self aware, then what is your/my awareness all about? Probably a low level awareness, that becomes complete and gets a true picture when it can realize the higher level universal awareness? Or are we a part of that real universal awareness

The entire universe is just an infinitesimal fragment of the Great reality Mind to whom we must one day all account for the actions done in our lives on earth. Our huge universe is only relatively huge in the grand order of existence it is but a quantum particle of a greater reality and this greater reality but a tiny particle of a much greater reality infinitely larger but there is no real scale a quantum particle in our universe could be a universe in its own right coming into existence and vanishing out of existence in a moment to small to measure. Even Plancks constant on these scales is an eternity and time a meaningless measure.

To the tiny infinitesimal we are slow moving giants living for great epochs to others those who are giants to us, in greater realms or dimensions of creation, we are just flashing sparks of life, one moment here and then gone and out of existence.

I saw universes come into existence expand into a cold dark death in a blink of an eye, I knew there were others much larger and slower living that saw our universe as a firefly flashing one moment and gone the next.

Does all this mean we humans are not important, absolutely not for time and scale are only illusions of the mind, there is a place in which all sentient life will live and do live outside of material time or space

In the realms of equality all entities come together and live at the same pace in the infinite ever existing moment of life.

I saw this place beyond time and space a universe of golden light where fragment or aspect of the Infinite Divine God is a great golden sun with a thousands trillion planets revolved around it all in the same orbit. Who populated these worlds and what the purpose? I do not know, but I will find out when I pass into glory forever. Of course God is not confined to that one place but it seemed to be something like the Holy Of Holies in the Hebrew Temple. Could I have access to this place?

This thought came to me as I travelled down the corridors and multi-realms not known yet to man, the sceptics will debate that nature's fine-tuning cannot be passed off as a mere coincidence. 'There are only two possible explanations,' he says. Either the universe was designed specifically for us by a creator, or there exists a large number of universes, each with different values of the fundamental constants, and, not surprisingly we find ourselves in one in which the constants have just the right values to permit galaxies, stars and life.

This made me really think about what of significance I had done during my life. Then I remembered my wife, children grandchildren, parents, siblings, relatives , friends and all the learning and wisdom I had gained in my short existence in this earthly dimension and it all had meaning and purpose and I knew I had not lived in vain, but will leave behind a legacy of love when I die.

To us our universe is supposedly 15 billion years old, but in the mind of God the Infinite Eternal, it has only existed for a tiny moment a blink in his hypothetical great eyes.

My essence could expand to encompass all existence and my mind became Godlike in knowledge and understanding, I was everywhere but nowhere all at the same time. My ethereal body could enlarge to the degree that I could feel taste touch and hear and experience all reality.

I could feel and hear the vibrations of every star every planet in the entire universe. My body metamorphosised and became the universe, shrinking and enlarging at will. I was omni - all but at the same time a mere mortal experiencing God the barrier between me and God blurred and became vague.

Dancing in the sun with great plasma beings washing off the flack with nuclear energy, what was previously considered by me as infinitely hot now became a cool bath within the shadow of a great dark sunspot of some far and distant star

The light of God was golden like the setting or rising sun out of it flowing out from the infinite mind of God, who is the Life and cause of existence. I heard him speaking to me and everything flashed in and out of my mind by this huge voiceless voice that filled all existence with the primordial energy.

It was the most beautiful music of God that sustains the universe. GOD is the vibrations of all existence

I remembered the Bible Isaiah stating the Lion will eat grass and a little child will lead him, the wolf will lay down with the lamb, there will no longer be death sorrow or loneness, and every tear will be wiped clear and people will sing with angels and God will join in with his awesome mighty voice of infinite beauty, filling all of existence and his voice will banish evil, fear and suffering forever. His voice is the voice of “LIFE”

“There a total mystical union with the divine” The norm is the union between multiple souls or between similar souls. Perhaps the greatest physical ecstasy known to humanity is sex and “something like this continues in the next life” but it is always based on love as no lust exists in the afterlife. It in like really getting inside the totally of another welcoming being. Like minds and souls join in glorious revolving Mandala’s of ever changing lights a glory of intense euphoric “Oneness”. Of course ere is fun and games in heaven, heaven is not about labor but about living in love and peace

In heaven, we are free to enjoy each other by totally giving of our souls, spirits and minds in true altruistic (unselfish) love, a merging of such unimaginable wonder, that our present minds and bodies could not comprehend it.

However, the union with the God is the place of infinite love and light, is beyond description in its wonder. Does everyone just enter there no? The doorkeeper to God and union with him is the “Great Prince of Peace”

“LOVE, PEACE, SECURITY, JOY AND HAPPINESS BEST DESCRIBED THE SAFETY IN THE ARMS OF GOD”

I continued to experiencing sustained sense of vibrant happiness beyond description together with unimaginable joy, peace and glory.
Thinking about this state of blissful rapture later I realized that God would not let souls continually remain in this state of bliss, as life, learning and purpose continues after we die and leave the earth. Death is not the end of life but the doorway into endless life

These is no such thing as boredom, because a process of continual learning and hopefully graduation to higher heavens There is an instant access and pooling of all knowledge by telepathy between all the minds in the universe, but of course even in heaven privacy is respected. In addition, it is possible to communicate in this manner with the simple innocent minds of our passed over beloved pets and all creatures big and small. More in feelings of love, appreciation and emotion than words.

By telepathy, teleportation, etc we will have instant access to all our beloved ones, throughout creation, no matter how far they are from us, by this exiting means. Wonderful is it not?

Therefore, there is no such thing as separation, loneliness, tears, sorrow, and sickness and finally there is victory over death itself. Just think of where you want to go or who you want to be with and you are there. The use of the terms telepathy and teleportation are not really correct but the nearest words I can find. In reality there is no such thing as remoteness or distant just billions of portals, doorways into parallel existences. With otherworldly eyes these doorways can be seen and we learn how to use them, like some huge underground rail road system.

From heaven we are able to hear in our minds the sorrow of loved ones still on earth who can not come to terms or understand or sometimes unexpected death. So” if we want to” one can make an effort to contact our loved ones still on earth by entering their dreams, thoughts, making them sense our presence, in various ways such as a flower, feather , smell or, even fragrances. That, hopefully make them aware, although feeling that we are far away, in reality we are just a hand stretch away.

There are specially gifted people on earth that can pick up our thoughts thought from the heavenly planes and relay them to the grieving relatives or friends. When we are in heaven we can also make people on earth meet each other so any urgent message from heaven is given to the correct person. This might seem just a coincidence at the time, but this link is arranged from the heavenly realms

Would all humanity no matter how depraved and evil in life on death go to these higher beautiful heavily planes immediately after their demise? No, absolutely not! Even in heaven there are conditions and accountability.

If this was what happens in heaven one would be constantly bombarded by evil thoughts (as the means of communication was telepathy) and heaven would become a most unheavenly place. So it is logical and obviously that God cannot permit this to happen.

Yes evil monstrous beings such as Hitler and his type are cast into outer darkness, as the darkness of true evil can never ever penetrate the light of God. The book of life, which is contained as memories in the temporal lobe of our brain, are played off, like a video recording on death before God. This is called the life review by near death experiences. Imagine the life review of a person like Hitler?

Are there similar experiences or pleasures exist in the spiritual realm as we do with our mortal bodies while on earth such as, good food, mortal love touch, taste, smell, sight, sex, would this all be lost when we took on ethereal or spiritual bodies? What about our friends, family, lovers, soul mates, travel, homes etc, etc, etc what about boundaries of conduct was anything forbidden if sin was abolished??

The reply came in a revelation that because there would no longer be evil or sin in the heavenly realms, as we progress, learn and become wiser, we are given increasing free will until at the highest vibratory level of purest perfection we are given absolute free will and everything becomes permissible. The pleasures of

Carnality does not exist but a similar soul pleasures ruled by altruist love is wonderfully experienced. Then we will be able to experience anything we desire such as controlled ecstasy, bliss and sublime joy, by mingling in love, merging completely into a cosmic mind to enjoy and relish eternal life with God and all other beings of composite white light.

Everything there is much much more intense, sustained and beautiful complete and wonderful than anything we could remotely liken to on the earthly plane. It is indeed very very exiting! Totally beyond what I had imagined. Grass, trees, flowers, plants are not subject to death and everything is made out of this translucent light. All living things are not biological but made out of inexhaustible indestructible energy.

Here time as we know it did not exist, one could rest in a moment or for a thousand years, or coexist in multiple moments at the same time, past, present and future , all existing somehow like a great multi-dimensional movie, all the frames unravelled into which one could jump from frame to frame, in and out of at will. Distance is meaningless as billions of higher or lower realms or planes were only separated by thin veil vortex or port into another reality. Each new dimension was another new universe.

As wave after wave of revelation swept through my whole being the wonder and joy of it all was almost too much for me stand or comprehend. I knew the will of God for existing was to ever progress upwards through many dimensions (heavens) towards the light of the ultimate absolute reality (which is God) while always retaining our blessed uniqueness. We would then still be ourselves but also have access to the infinite knowledge power and presence of the creator God as we finally withdraw once again into ourselves. It is a matter of progression or regression and this depends on each soul.

I heard the soft voice (God) speaking directly into my mind some of the deepest mysteries of existence and creation. Much to my disappointment I could only recall a little, but what I recall I have included in this document. As the years have past I have slowly remembered more and more, but of course there are simply revelations so profound that my human brain could never contain them.

Once a person has passed from life on this side into the afterlife it becomes impossible to worry about what is happening on earth any longer. If we continued to worry it would not be heaven would it?

There are angels great and less great, they are beings of light that inhabit all of Gods creation. Just like earthly people they have different characters and each is assigned a task. Sometimes they come to gather in a huge crown of glowing billions, singing the praises of God in a heavily chorus of unimaginable beauty. Their songs of joy and peace reverberate out into the universe giving life and love where it is needed.

Each person of good character has their own guardian angel, which most of us are not aware of. They are the messengers to humanity bringing word of encouragement as well as warning when necessary.

If you want to know the name of your angel clear your mind, and then ask your angel, what is your name? The very first name that popped into your mind is the name of your angel. Think about events in your life when you were helped by some stranger, who appeared as a normal person, this could have being your angel helping you. Intuitions to go somewhere or not go somewhere, unease about something are often strong prompting from your angels.

There might at times be as many angels walking on earth as there are people. Angels can take on any form, if your idea of an angel is of a huge majestic being with great wings, your angel might manifest himself/herself to you like that. Angels do not really have gender like humans.

Some of the future events coming to planet earth were revealed and shown to me. Humanity would have to migrate from planet earth into the universe, as the earth’s resources were finite. No nuclear holocaust would obliterate earth and the greatest threat was the population explosion. In addition, the future was not set in stone and the divisions taken by a person or a nation could alter the outcome of the future.

The highest attribute any person can have is wisdom and the wisdom to do things wisely. Graceful love must abound the joyful realities of multiple heavenly glories.

{There gifted people who are referred to as clairvoyants or psychics, but the title for these people is not really important. Unfortunately there are countless fakes making money from people seeking answers for their bereavement}

There is a time coming when God will have to intervene in the affairs of humanity, and the great monotheistic religions belief about this apocalyptic event borders on the truth of what is going to happen. Deep down we all know humanity cannot continue much longer on the path of destruction it now follows

Regards

Alan

[Judas130]

I think this is a bad example as well, because while atheists may have faith in science (and as you note, it's not the same kind of faith) it isn't essential.

I think many believers in faith see through their perceptions the one kind of atheist: the militant atheist. What is commonly seens as a threat to religion is the militant and anti-theist atheist, who wants to see an end to religion and bring humanity to view things with free rationality.
When many atheists unite under some organisation or banner they might look like some proto-religion and this is what I feel people are seeing here. What I find funny is if a theist tells you atheism is a religion, and then attempts to debate that Atheism has caused more unspeakable crimes that Christianity, and the atheist says 'well, hey..if you look at Stalin and how he utilised the serfs, or if you look at nazi ideology, its very proto-religion', the believer takes this as an insult, thinking that blaming religion for the crimes of atheism is absurd. Well, they can't have it both ways.
People may mix up faith and religion, both are separate but interact. Although aspects of Atheist action over recent years may appear religious, rest assured it has no faith.

[Alan McDougall]

I think many believers in faith see through their perceptions the one kind of atheist: the militant atheist. What is commonly seens as a threat to religion is the militant and anti-theist atheist, who wants to see an end to religion and bring humanity to view things with free rationality.
When many atheists unite under some organisation or banner they might look like some proto-religion and this is what I feel people are seeing here. What I find funny is if a theist tells you atheism is a religion, and then attempts to debate that Atheism has caused more unspeakable crimes that Christianity, and the atheist says 'well, hey..if you look at Stalin and how he utilised the serfs, or if you look at nazi ideology, its very proto-religion', the believer takes this as an insult, thinking that blaming religion for the crimes of atheism is absurd. Well, they can't have it both ways.
People may mix up faith and religion, both are separate but interact. Although aspects of Atheist action over recent years may appear religious, rest assured it has no faith.

I am not religious but I believe in God, but not the God of any religious persuasion but the "God of my own understanding" which I do not force on anyone else.

It is not a faith, that denotes some sort of trust in a divinity, I simply believe there must be a primordial "uncaused cause for existence" How that belief could offend anyone is beyond my comprehension.

Regards

Alan

[The Atheist]

Much of it was deliberate induced altered states of consciousness, but not drug induced. I also had a profound near death event due a almost successful attempt at suicide due to my depressed state at the time

Were you on medication?

I read the rest of your post, which is entertaining, if a little proselytising.

The only question I have to put in the beautiful picture of [I'll call it, for want of a better term] heaven you painted:

Where does hatred go?

Does it just suddenly disappear, or are people who cannot help themselves harbouring hatred or anger banned from the light place? Does universal knowledge suddenly overcome those negative emotions?


I think many believers in faith see through their perceptions the one kind of atheist: the militant atheist. What is commonly seens as a threat to religion is the militant and anti-theist atheist, who wants to see an end to religion and bring humanity to view things with free rationality.

The most amusing part is that theists see atheists as a threat at all.

Most atheists are rationalists and the contest is pretty straightforward:

In the red corner.... The Omnipotent, the Fantastic, Creator of the Entire Universe!! GOD!!

In the blue corner....... a bunch of humans.

Be over in seconds. I have to say that if I were a theist, the idea of people who disagreed with me wouldn't be worth considering. It's all just another symptom of transubstantiation in action - if I can rationalise my faith to you, then my faith becomes certainty.

Good name - why 130?


Although aspects of Atheist action over recent years may appear religious, rest assured it has no faith.

Just more contradiction. I weaken atheism by calling it a faith, yet the cornerstone of my belief is pure faith.

Cure trick, really. Shows how deep they have to dig.


I am not religious but I believe in God, but not the God of any religious persuasion but the "God of my own understanding" which I do not force on anyone else.

It is not a faith, that denotes some sort of trust in a divinity, I simply believe there must be a primordial "uncaused cause for existence" How that belief could offend anyone is beyond my comprehension.

Regards

Alan

I don't think "offend" is quite the right word. Your views don't offend me at all.

[Alan McDougall]

Atheist,

Try to be a friendly atheist I did not join this forum to debate for or against anyones personal belief.

I puzzled how you can see this thread of mine a proselytising.. If you don't like me or what I post then ignore me and don't read my stuff!!

I consider myself as a rational theist not bound by any religious dogma or doctrine and in fact I despise fundamentalism in all its guises and forms. Believe it or not that includes atheistic fundamentalism as well

Hatred is an unhappy part of the duality we live in , there is love and hate, dark and light, negative and positive, life and death and so on.

There are hells of our own making in the afterlife and heavens of our own making in the afterlife. God does not judge anyone we go where expect to end up and advance from that step in the eternal ladder of life

[Three Sparrows]

I have only one question, how can a mere human induce such a profound experience? I think your testimony was wonderful, and I, too love God, but do not adhere to any denominations. God is so profound, so wonderful, isn't He?
You must feel honored to see so clearly into the After Life.
Praise God, I love him so! He is so good to us.

[RichardHresko]

One does not weaken atheism by pointing out that it involves an act of faith -- namely that reality is completely explorable by the senses (a faith, by the way, that science never claims for itself).

"True believers," whether fundamentalist religionists or militant atheists, want to feel that somehow their belief-system is in some way uniquely true. Religionists make claims about certain experiences or writings they feel are divinely inspired, while militant atheists make unsupportable claims of superior rationality (unsupported since they do not acknowledge that their own underlying assumptions are debatable, and because they arbitrarily trim off realms of experience they find inconvenient).

Clearly atheism is as robust as any other religious position. Beyond that, no claims for it are indisputable.

[The Atheist]

Atheist,

Try to be a friendly atheist I did not join this forum to debate for or against anyones personal belief.

I haven't intended to be unfriendly, and I don't think my posts convey any unfriendliness.

Your position raised a logical question - where does the hatred go? But you only came up with:


Hatred is an unhappy part of the duality we live in , there is love and hate, dark and light, negative and positive, life and death and so on.

There are hells of our own making in the afterlife and heavens of our own making in the afterlife. God does not judge anyone we go where expect to end up and advance from that step in the eternal ladder of life

Which doesn't answer the question at all.


One does not weaken atheism by pointing out that it involves an act of faith -- namely that reality is completely explorable by the senses (a faith, by the way, that science never claims for itself).

Yet again, you choose to use a strawman of atheism to mount the same old attack on it.

It's really very, very simple; an atheist does not believe in god/s, a position which requires no faith at all. That it's a strawman is clearly evinced by the continuing incorrect assertion that atheism has anything to do with this position: "reality is completely explorable by the senses".

Most Buddhists are atheists, your argument is flat wrong.

Do you ever tire of repeating the same fallacies?

[jocky]

Athiest, when I get to heaven, unlikely as that sounds, I am going to look God squarely in the face and say, you dont exist! Once a troublemaker, always a troublemaker. :) In my view, the position of athiesm is simple, regardless of Hitchens major or Dawkings, we do not believe in the supernatural. Thankfully, there is no such thing as organised athieism.

[RichardHresko]

Just as deciding not to act is itself an action, so is deciding not to believe an act of belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. A decision has been reached without proof, which is exactly what belief entails.

There is no defensible scientific atheism, just as there is no defensible scientific theism, since science is not concerned with questions of anything but the material world.

If one wants to adopt a position that involves no belief on the matter, then the correct position is one of agnosticism.

[jocky]

Just as deciding not to act is itself an action, so is deciding not to believe an act of belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. A decision has been reached without proof, which is exactly what belief entails.

There is no defensible scientific atheism, just as there is no defensible scientific theism, since science is not concerned with questions of anything but the material world.

If one wants to adopt a position that involves no belief on the matter, then the correct position is one of agnosticism.

Good point, however agnosticism involves proof, as no one can prove the existence of God one way or another, it is not worth debating. Agnostics do not deny God, they take Tennyson's position of honest doubt. Athiests, or myself, take the view, that heavenly powers are scary stories to fear the kids. Religion is politics by other means. I would never question another mans beliefs, as long as they do not force it down our throats. History tends to reinforce my point.

[RichardHresko]

Good point, however agnosticism involves proof, as no one can prove the existence of God one way or another, it is not worth debating. Agnostics do not deny God, they take Tennyson's position of honest doubt. Athiests, or myself, take the view, that heavenly powers are scary stories to fear the kids. Religion is politics by other means. I would never question another mans beliefs, as long as they do not force it down our throats. History tends to reinforce my point.

Agnosticism is the position that there is no convincing proof in either direction. In that sense it does indeed involve proof.

Atheists have come to a decision about the existence of god. Given that this decision is not based on proof, since as you have admitted, there is no proof either way, atheism involves belief.

While religion (including atheism in the 20th century) has been used politically, this does not mean that that is what religion is. Just as a cow (sacred or otherwise) can raise the objection that she is not a hamburger merely because that is how her kind has been used.

The point of my posts has been merely to counter various unsupportable claims as to what atheism is.

[jocky]

Agnosticism is the position that there is no convincing proof in either direction. In that sense it does indeed involve proof.

Atheists have come to a decision about the existence of god. Given that this decision is not based on proof, since as you have admitted, there is no proof either way, atheism involves belief.

While religion (including atheism in the 20th century) has been used politically, this does not mean that that is what religion is. Just as a cow (sacred or otherwise) can raise the objection that she is not a hamburger merely because that is how her kind has been used.

The point of my posts has been merely to counter various unsupportable claims as to what atheism is.

Richard, everything involves belief. To be agnostic is to take no position at all, basically they sit on fences chewing straw all day, waiting till they die so they can say, I knew there was not a God or, vice versa. Athiesm, as I have already stated, is a much more vigorous argument, we, or I, take the view that the supernatural is just that, and nothing more.

[jocky]

[QUOTE=RichardHresko;7602

While religion (including atheism in the 20th century) has been used politically, this does not mean that that is what religion is. Just as a cow (sacred or otherwise) can raise the objection that she is not a hamburger .[/QUOTE]

Richard you are obviously not a farmer. Any self respecting cow worth her salt would object long and loudly to be compared to bacon. What an insult. Mind you the ways of God are inscrutable. Beefburgers, man, beefburgers. :lol:

[JuniperWoolf]

Where did I suggest plagiarism?

You seem to be seeing things which aren't there.


:lol: What a perfect retort.
Debating religion has lost it's magic for me, but you've got to love The Atheist's rhetoric.

[RichardHresko]

Richard, everything involves belief. To be agnostic is to take no position at all, basically they sit on fences chewing straw all day, waiting till they die so they can say, I knew there was not a God or, vice versa. Athiesm, as I have already stated, is a much more vigorous argument, we, or I, take the view that the supernatural is just that, and nothing more.

I would not characterize the agnostic position in such passive terms. If there is no definitive way to settle the question of whether or not there is a god it is a mark of intellectual honesty and, I dare say, courage to admit that one does not know.

Atheism, like other religious beliefs, can certainly be argued vigorously. It should be remembered that vigor is a poor substitute for rigor.

[RichardHresko]

Richard you are obviously not a farmer. Any self respecting cow worth her salt would object long and loudly to be compared to bacon. What an insult. Mind you the ways of God are inscrutable. Beefburgers, man, beefburgers. :lol:

There you have me! Not much ranching is done in Brooklyn!

[The Atheist]

Athiest, when I get to heaven, unlikely as that sounds, I am going to look God squarely in the face and say, you dont exist! Once a troublemaker, always a troublemaker. :) In my view, the position of athiesm is simple, regardless of Hitchens major or Dawkings, we do not believe in the supernatural. Thankfully, there is no such thing as organised athieism.

It's something I'd hate to see, and Dawkins has been instrumental in organising it. Luckily, he's a plonker and will never appeal to blokes like you and me, and so far, his best effort is the awful "Brights" idea.

I think we'd be far better to apply humour than logic.


Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

No.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, not an active belief that none exist. It's really quite simple.

You're free to continue arguing that point, but if you wanted to be arguing an actual point as opposed to a strawman of atheism, you should accept that difference.

[Judas130]

It really depends what you see the word 'belief' with 'God' to mean.

If you think it means faith, trust, confidence with 'God' then this doesn't necessarily apply to atheism. One does not say 'One has the faith that there is no God' as one wouldn't say 'I believe that I disbelieve', because one simply disbelieves.

However, an atheist may have 'confidence' or 'opinion/conviction' that there is no God, the opposite side to the coin that the a Theist is on, having confidence that there is a God, but does 'confidence' in something really suggest a religious 'belief'? I think it does only with positive claims such as 'the lord is my shepherd'. With negation, religious belief does not apply, and hence an atheist uses 'disbelief', because it is the negative of belief.

Atheism does not follow religious creeds or tenants, beyond the personal, and possibly empirically or logically influenced (or as Atheist has suggested with humour), disbelief in a deity. It is a common mistake for those who adhere to tenants of religion and those that revel in their faith, to see atheism through their religious perspective and refer to it with their rhetoric. Sadly, most definitions and comments on atheism have been penned by theists, it feels natural for a theist to say 'its a belief there is no God', but they would be incorrect.

What's the point of all that? Well...exactly.

[The Atheist]

Sadly, most definitions and comments on atheism have been penned by theists, it feels natural for a theist to say 'its a belief there is no God', but they would be incorrect.

What's the point of all that? Well...exactly.

Well said!

What's the point?

Only one, and that's why I value your well-composed treatise; the mis-application of definition on atheism just shouldn't happen any longer. A smart, well-read person cannot be ignorant of the world in the 21st century so badly as to make that kind of mistake, so it's done deliberately. I've lost count of the number of times I've made exactly the same point as you, although probably not as eloquently.

Doesn't matter though, you can't change things which refute your argument, docherknow?

You look like the sort of bloke who ought to check out The Blokes' Thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43406&page=74). Jocky's in it, but we have a word limiter on him in there.

[JBI]

Well said!

What's the point?

Only one, and that's why I value your well-composed treatise; the mis-application of definition on atheism just shouldn't happen any longer. A smart, well-read person cannot be ignorant of the world in the 21st century so badly as to make that kind of mistake, so it's done deliberately. I've lost count of the number of times I've made exactly the same point as you, although probably not as eloquently.

Doesn't matter though, you can't change things which refute your argument, docherknow?

You look like the sort of bloke who ought to check out The Blokes' Thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43406&page=74). Jocky's in it, but we have a word limiter on him in there.


There is a big point actually - theists consider (and many atheists) atheism to be a disbelief in said Gods (notably Christian conceptions of God). in that sense, Atheism doesn't exist outside of religion. As it is defined as a negation of the religious assumption of truth.

[RichardHresko]

Atheism is, according to the OED, "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God" (p.533).

Sloppiness of language, or thinking, or both, equates disbelief with lack of belief. Atheism is belief system. If one does not have a belief or disbelief in the existence of a god then one is agnostic.

Unless one wishes to challenge the OED this settles the matter as to what the term "atheist" means.

[The Atheist]

Atheism is, according to the OED, "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God" (p.533).

Sloppiness of language, or thinking, or both, equates disbelief with lack of belief. Atheism is belief system. If one does not have a belief or disbelief in the existence of a god then one is agnostic.

Unless one wishes to challenge the OED this settles the matter as to what the term "atheist" means.

I'd gladly challenge the OED.

I'm surprised you'd think that a dictionary meaning lent any validity to a chosen meaning.

[The Atheist]

There is a big point actually - theists consider (and many atheists) atheism to be a disbelief in said Gods (notably Christian conceptions of God). in that sense, Atheism doesn't exist outside of religion. As it is defined as a negation of the religious assumption of truth.

It's not a negative, it's a lack of. Having no bananas doesn't usually encourage one to believe that bananas don't exist.

Please don't make me bring out that silly a-philatelist rubbish.....

[JBI]

It's not a negative, it's a lack of. Having no bananas doesn't usually encourage one to believe that bananas don't exist.

Please don't make me bring out that silly a-philatelist rubbish.....

If there were no religious people, there would be no atheists - you do not need to not believe in something that doesn't exist - the only way to believe in that, is to consider the possibility of it existing - for it to get to the degree of "Atheism" in that sense, there must be a strong opposition to the idea - people aren't non believers in Gravity, for instance - there aren't nongravatists with any real credit. Yet the religious foothold on society causes an obsession with denying something.

Personally, I don't believe in God, that doesn't mean I am an atheist, as atheism is merely another category - by categorizing, you are inventing, to understand the thing inside of a frame of reference, you need to break down the categories, and remove the names. Atheism exists because theism does - check the etymology.

To go with your banana example - lets say someone didn't know that Bananas existed - then he wouldn't need to believe that Bananas didn't exist, they simply, to him, wouldn't exist. Now when applied to an imaginary object, like, for instance, a philosopher's stone - someone outside the culture who conceived of one, I. E., everyone outside of European traditions before the culture exchanges (though even most people today), and most people in the European one anyway, would not need to deny its existence, to them it wouldn't exist.

In that sense, you can only not believe in something, if you can conceive of it to some extent, essentially, if you can name it. Atheism then, exists because people conceptualized the notion of a deity - without the deity, there is no atheism, and there are no arrogant self-centered people running around cocksure and militant, looking to rain on everyone's parade, who cannot post anything that isn't opinionated and plaintiff on public forums. But, then again, there also wouldn't be annoying little preachers who come on and think a public forum is a recruiting ground for converts or an open audience of the Gospel According to Joe Sixpack. I don't know who is worse, to be honest, either way, none of them are really interested in discussing literature, the Bible as literature, or even the societies that form religion, outside of their own sphere of thought, so, ultimately, both are equally as self-centered, silly, and downright boring. Of course though, some people like to also cut up people's posts into half sentences, and give 2-10 word responses to everything, making replying a tedious task (and I am sure that is want to happen to this one too), so I doubt I'll bother replying if that happens, given that it would be better if people, wanting to have a conversation, but recognizing the medium is written, and that there is a bit of time elapsed between each post, could write in paragraphs that take in a whole argument, and then cut it up, in paragraphs again, as that is how written English logically works, rather than cutting here and there where it is seen as fit - such a world would be ideal, but alas, the preachers on both sides are freaking annoying, and will probably have their way (I suspect anally) with this post too.

[RichardHresko]

I'd gladly challenge the OED.

I'm surprised you'd think that a dictionary meaning lent any validity to a chosen meaning.

On what basis, other than it suits your eccentric idea of what atheism is, do you reject the OED as an arbiter of the meaning of an English word?

It is a mark of close-mindedness that when one is faced with evidence from an authoritative source that counters one's beliefs that one rejects such evidence out-of-hand.

So much for even the appearance of rationality on your part.

[The Atheist]

If there were no religious people, there would be no atheists -

No.

If there was no religion, we'd all be atheists.

It is that easy.

Alas, I see that I must bring the a-philatelist nonsense. Bananas have ever been an analogy failure since those creationist dummies failed to realise they've been modified by man. An aphilatelist does not collect stamps. He doesn't need to even consider whether stamps are real or whether they exist, he does not collect stamps. An Amzon tribesman who's never heard of a post office is an aphilatelist.

An atheist does not need to ask whether god/s might or might not exist, but if he doesn't actively believe in one or more, he's an atheist. To take it to its silliest end, babies are born atheist, as are puppies, dolphins and aardvarks. Your whole treatise is based on the rather queer notion that one must "know" something to be free of it. Unfortunately, as I don't believe in Zenquiths, Strolgerneufs or Pinklepokins either, I find the idea preposterous.

And I'm sorry about ignoring the rest of your post, but it didn't bear commenting on.


On what basis, other than it suits your eccentric idea of what atheism is, do you reject the OED as an arbiter of the meaning of an English word?

I like the OED, but as far as I'm aware, no organisation has ever been appointed arbiter of English.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please show it.

I'm agnostic on language.

[The Atheist]

On what basis, other than it suits your eccentric idea of what atheism is, do you reject the OED as an arbiter of the meaning of an English word?

Ignore my previous remark, it was a mistaken attempt at levity.

You do know how dictionaries work? And that words are constantly updated, added and changed in meaning? Dictionaries are one organisation's recording of what a word means at the time the description was written. If OED is the sole arbiter of English, then it would appear that all other dictionaries shouldn't exist.

If I want to know what the definition of "Roman Catholic" is, I go to the RCC, not the OED. If I want to know what an Anglican is, I'd be emailing Rowan Williams.

Seriously, I'm surprised you even asked this question. If you think my idea of what "atheist" means, then a hell of a lot of atheists must be highly eccentric, as the description I've given you time after time is by far the most widely-accepted description of the term.


It is a mark of close-mindedness that when one is faced with evidence from an authoritative source that counters one's beliefs that one rejects such evidence out-of-hand.

Here, you manage to call me closed[sic]-minded and say that I reject evidence out of hand in one sentence, which is a pretty neat trick.

Au contraire, and that's why I'm now responding at length.

I am not even slightly closed-minded, and saying that just because I don't agree with your analysis is a bit pointless. I have above explained precisely why a dictionary meaning shouldn't be taken as last authority on the subject, albeit one from an institution as respected as the Oxford Press.


So much for even the appearance of rationality on your part.

QED.

[Jozanny]

In that sense, you can only not believe in something, if you can conceive of it to some extent, essentially, if you can name it. Atheism then, exists because people conceptualized the notion of a deity - without the deity, there is no atheism, and there are no arrogant self-centered people running around cocksure and militant, looking to rain on everyone's parade, who cannot post anything that isn't opinionated and plaintiff on public forums. But, then again, there also wouldn't be annoying little preachers who come on and think a public forum is a recruiting ground for converts or an open audience of the Gospel According to Joe Sixpack. I don't know who is worse, to be honest, either way, none of them are really interested in discussing literature, the Bible as literature, or even the societies that form religion, outside of their own sphere of thought, so, ultimately, both are equally as self-centered, silly, and downright boring. Of course though, some people like to also cut up people's posts into half sentences, and give 2-10 word responses to everything, making replying a tedious task (and I am sure that is want to happen to this one too), so I doubt I'll bother replying if that happens, given that it would be better if people, wanting to have a conversation, but recognizing the medium is written, and that there is a bit of time elapsed between each post, could write in paragraphs that take in a whole argument, and then cut it up, in paragraphs again, as that is how written English logically works, rather than cutting here and there where it is seen as fit - such a world would be ideal, but alas, the preachers on both sides are freaking annoying, and will probably have their way (I suspect anally) with this post too.

JBI: I tend to agree with you here, which is why my visits to RT are being infrequent.

Let me stipulate, for the record, that I am near universally anti-doctrine, whether Semitic derived, Eastern, or with the lavishly injected goo of Western gnosticism added in. That said, I am increasingly discontent with hard materialism as a methodology, and don't know where this leaves me, except to be conscious of the narrative, and responsible to and for that narrative as much as I can, like with American Mormonism--which at the very least is fascinating in its story of a survivalist hardline cult rapidly turning 21st century mainstream.

Its founder, Joseph Smith, was an anarchist who declared war on the federal government of the United States; from my study of his biography and from my lay knowledge of mental illness, I suspect he was a borderline psychotic (I did a term paper on him a few years before university). The government policed its members for years, and held the admission of Utah into the union hostage to pressure the LDS into renouncing bigamy.

Today? Mormonism is studied as a western sect gradually assimilating into the mainstream; it is a fairly wealthy church, steadily using its political power to make its orthodoxy felt, and the mainstream media increasingly examines it as a sociological phenomenon, even wondering if the LDS church will *preserve* the American Empire the way Catholicism preserved Rome.

These types of discussions are much more interesting to me over and above zealotry.

[The Atheist]

Just before Richard and JBI return, I'd like to add a question for them:

Which of the following gods are you agnostic as to the existence thereof?

Osiris
Set
Thor
Zeus
Neptune
Mithras
Baal
Ra
Maui
Papatuanuku
Vishnu

I'll leave the list there for now - as there are too many to list - but if you aren't agnostic about any or all of those gods, I'd appreciate knowing why they're different from gods you are agnostic as their existence.

[JBI]

Just before Richard and JBI return, I'd like to add a question for them:

Which of the following gods are you agnostic as to the existence thereof?

Osiris
Set
Thor
Zeus
Neptune
Mithras
Baal
Ra
Maui
Papatuanuku
Vishnu

I'll leave the list there for now - as there are too many to list - but if you aren't agnostic about any or all of those gods, I'd appreciate knowing why they're different from gods you are agnostic as their existence.

Ah, the argument Ad Dawkinsum.

You miss the point though. We are talking about the concept of knowledge, and how it ties into dispute. the only way to not believe in something, is to conceptualize it. In that sense, I cannot believe in something I do not know of, since, not knowing of it, I do not know how to not believe in it.

Disbelief comes only when belief is considered. So, someone who doesn't know of these Gods, I. E., someone who hasn't heard of them, most likely isn't "Agnostic" to them if you will, but simply hasn't heard of them. In that sense then, the only reason why you are Atheist to them, is because, quite simply, you realize that they once were believed in.

In that sense, as a discourse, atheism is limited to the existence of theism - to declare yourself an atheist then, you automatically declare yourself as discrediting theism, not believing in a God. So, in other words, You believe/know there is no God, meaning, you are contradicting, rather than "free thinking" and you are just as rooted in the discourse as anyone else.

You try and make the argument that Atheism is some sort of inherent real, but where is the grounding? Was believing in Evolution an inherent real before it was hypothesized? What about the ancient Chinese, were they atheist to the Jewish faith, or were they simply on the other side of the world. You cannot start labeling people to suit your political motivations - you cannot be something, unless you are acknowledged/acknowledge yourself as something -therefore, you cannot be atheist, which, given the definition you dispute because it disagrees with you, would imply a strong need for a conceptualization of a deity to generate such an attitude.


But of course, someone, after this, is going to come in here with another tedious response, wherein, it becomes clear that he only reads what feeds his arguments, and ignores the rest (meanwhile breaking things up into single sentences to try and authoritatively manipulate the context of someone else's post to serve his arrogant discourse) so why should I bother posting?

Lets face it, atheists are just as belief-bound as theists. Some of them think, just because they are obtuse opinionated "Atheists"(or "The Atheists") who somehow are "Above" religion, that they have the right to come here sporting an "I am right you are all idiots" attitude and calling everyone else names for thinking differently, so, when it comes down to it, all the arguments against religion ultimately fail, as, from observation, a belief or disbelief in the religion doesn't a) make one a better person (the argument ad Al-Quedum), b) make one a more open minded person (the argument ad scientificum), or better yet c) make one any more interesting to listen to (no neologisms for this one).

Both of these seem camps are highly influenced by America at any rate - the preacher, in the European tradition, would have been burned to a crisp, whereas today they are given street corners and are allowed to come-a-knocking on my door. The atheist too would have, whereas now they simply follow the preachers in everything, including holding conventions and whatnot. All I know is, when it comes down to it, traditional religious music is far more pleasant to the ear than any of this tedious banter, and, quite simply, sometimes it is enjoyable to experience a culture, and appreciate its history and traditions without perhaps believing in its deities - though one should show respect, assuming there is respect merited.

But no, alas, tedious preachers coming in saying they saw Jesus when they were on the toilet, and annoying atheists coming here saying everyone who disagrees with them is a moron - who is worse tell me? You've (you Atheists) have essentially become what you are criticizing - good job, you ruined it for the rest of us who merely wished to enjoy life without being so god damn uptight.

[RichardHresko]

Ignore my previous remark, it was a mistaken attempt at levity.

You do know how dictionaries work? And that words are constantly updated, added and changed in meaning? Dictionaries are one organisation's recording of what a word means at the time the description was written. If OED is the sole arbiter of English, then it would appear that all other dictionaries shouldn't exist.

If I want to know what the definition of "Roman Catholic" is, I go to the RCC, not the OED. If I want to know what an Anglican is, I'd be emailing Rowan Williams.

Seriously, I'm surprised you even asked this question. If you think my idea of what "atheist" means, then a hell of a lot of atheists must be highly eccentric, as the description I've given you time after time is by far the most widely-accepted description of the term.



Here, you manage to call me closed[sic]-minded and say that I reject evidence out of hand in one sentence, which is a pretty neat trick.

Au contraire, and that's why I'm now responding at length.

I am not even slightly closed-minded, and saying that just because I don't agree with your analysis is a bit pointless. I have above explained precisely why a dictionary meaning shouldn't be taken as last authority on the subject, albeit one from an institution as respected as the Oxford Press.



QED.

1) Nobody claimed that the OED is the sole arbiter of English words. It is a recognized authority. In proper, scholarly discussion if one wishes to challenge an authority one either shows why that authority is biased or wrong, or cites an opposing one. Mere gainsaying is not, as Monty Python pointed out, an argument.

2) Congratulations on your self-appointment as determiner of atheist orthodoxy on a par with Rome and Canterbury! If you are not the determiner of atheist orthodoxy, then kindly do something other than hand-waving when you make claims as to what atheists believe -- for example, cite authorities who are in a position to speak with authority on the subject.

3) Someone who is not closed-minded is aware that in English there are many words that have alternate spellings. "Close-minded" is a recognized variant of "closed-minded" as a perusal of the American Heritage Dictionary will verify.

You are close-minded because you do not respond with thoughtful analysis and research when your views are challenged. Rather, you merely deny the charges without proof and make further unsubstantiated claims (such as your claim that your definition of atheism is "by far the most widely-accepted description of the term").

[The Atheist]

Ah, the argument Ad Dawkinsum.

No, it has nothing to do with Dawkins. I have atheist literature from before Jesus Christ which covers the topic, so it's at least two millennia before Richard.

Still, it's as good a swerve as any, because the point about agnosticism regarding those gods stands.


You miss the point though. We are talking about the concept of knowledge, and how it ties into dispute. the only way to not believe in something, is to conceptualize it. In that sense, I cannot believe in something I do not know of, since, not knowing of it, I do not know how to not believe in it.

No, I haven't missed any points, I understand exactly what agnosticism is saying, and I'm not agnostic on any gods that I've never heard of, which would number in the thousands. The argument is just spurious.

You're still tied up in disbelief as opposed to not believing in, and if you can't get past that very simple point, then we're chasing each other around the mulberry bush.


In that sense, as a discourse, atheism is limited to the existence of theism - to declare yourself an atheist then, you automatically declare yourself as discrediting theism, not believing in a God. So, in other words, You believe/know there is no God, meaning, you are contradicting, rather than "free thinking" and you are just as rooted in the discourse as anyone else.

And there it is again.

Since you're determined that that's the meaning of atheism you're arguing against, I'll just let you do so.


You try and make the argument that Atheism is some sort of inherent real, but where is the grounding?

Nonsense. I've never said that, or even something you could paraphrase that way.


Was believing in Evolution an inherent real before it was hypothesized? What about the ancient Chinese, were they atheist to the Jewish faith, or were they simply on the other side of the world. You cannot start labeling people to suit your political motivations ...

Surprisingly, that's exactly what you're doing.

All I'm doing is making a plain description clear. I've already noted that babies, rocks and dongoes are all atheist.

It's so, so simple:

a + moral = without morals
a + theism = without god/s


...you cannot be something, unless you are acknowledged/acknowledge yourself as something -therefore, you cannot be atheist, which, given the definition you dispute because it disagrees with you, would imply a strong need for a conceptualization of a deity to generate such an attitude.

As above, just more mis-categorising of atheism.


But of course, someone, after this, is going to come in here with another tedious response, wherein, it becomes clear that he only reads what feeds his arguments, and ignores the rest (meanwhile breaking things up into single sentences to try and authoritatively manipulate the context of someone else's post to serve his arrogant discourse) so why should I bother posting?

You know, I have to say that I find your means of attempting to manipulate a discussion while claiming I am highly amusing.

You seem to think that your posts should be answered in one way only.

Alas, I prefer to do it bit by bit, so if you don't like it, I suggest you stop. I'm not actually trying to manipulate yours at all, but I do want to ensure that some of your minor points don't get neglected.

Arrogant? Sure I am. Better than your anal comment previously.


Lets face it, atheists are just as belief-bound as theists.

Funny how someone reputedly agnostic is so fundamental when it suits. Same argument, same answer.


Some of them think, just because they are obtuse opinionated "Atheists"(or "The Atheists") who somehow are "Above" religion, that they have the right to come here sporting an "I am right you are all idiots" attitude and calling everyone else names for thinking differently, so, when it comes down to it, all the arguments against religion ultimately fail, as, from observation, a belief or disbelief in the religion doesn't a) make one a better person (the argument ad Al-Quedum), b) make one a more open minded person (the argument ad scientificum), or better yet c) make one any more interesting to listen to (no neologisms for this one).

So, now we've moved on from what an atheist actually is to what I think!

Again, your argument, which I'll leave to you, since there's no point in challenging things you've clearly made up. That it bears no relation to reality can be easily proven by your failure to show where I have ever said those things or acted that way.

Maybe it's some other "The Atheist" you're thinking of.

Pity Pendragon's not here - at least he's honest and would tell you that I've once disrespected his faith or god.


Both of these seem camps are highly influenced by America at any rate - the preacher, in the European tradition, would have been burned to a crisp, whereas today they are given street corners and are allowed to come-a-knocking on my door.

What a complete lack of understanding of atheism!

As I've already mentioned, atheism is a lot older than America.


The atheist too would have, whereas now they simply follow the preachers in everything, including holding conventions and whatnot.

That other "The Atheist" again, since it sure as hell doesn't apply to me. I've never been a member of an atheist group, and I certainly don't follow any atheist "preachers". I have, however, on many occasions, described Dawkins' brand of "club atheism" as a joke and rarely quote him unless someone - like you above - brings him into it first.


All I know is, when it comes down to it, traditional religious music is far more pleasant to the ear than any of this tedious banter, and, quite simply, sometimes it is enjoyable to experience a culture, and appreciate its history and traditions without perhaps believing in its deities - though one should show respect, assuming there is respect merited.

Again, again, again, you're arguing against your strawman of atheism rather than me or anyone I'm friends with, so I'll leave it.


But no, alas, tedious preachers coming in saying they saw Jesus when they were on the toilet, and annoying atheists coming here saying everyone who disagrees with them is a moron...

More straw. Again, I challenge you to find where I have said that.


... - who is worse tell me? You've (you Atheists) have essentially become what you are criticizing - good job, you ruined it for the rest of us who merely wished to enjoy life without being so god damn uptight.

If your words were true, you'd ignore the entire debate.

Now, you've contradicted yourself, which fits nicely with the list of fallacies and incorrect assertions you made on the way through.


1) Nobody claimed that the OED is the sole arbiter of English words. It is a recognized authority. In proper, scholarly discussion if one wishes to challenged an authority one either shows why that authority is biased or wrong, or cites an opposing one. Mere gainsaying is not, as Monty Python pointed out, an argument.

Ah, we have made progress, although it's nice of you to yet again ignore the central question of how dictionaries are compiled. The word comes first and gains usage before it's ever put in a dictionary. I didn't just gainsay you, and your ignoring the questions I put doesn't mean I didn't type them in.

;)

I note you also avoided the OED description of Roman Catholic.


2) Congratulations on your self-appointment as determiner of atheist orthodoxy on a par with Rome and Canterbury! If you are not the determiner of atheist orthodoxy, then kindly do something other than hand-waving when you make claims as to what atheists believe -- for example, cite authorities that are in a position to speak with authority on the subject.

Authority? I would have thought that to an English expert, use of the definite article before "Atheist" would have been quite plain that I am the authority. Old Sturmbannfuhrer Ratzinger isn't a pope, he's the pope.

If you doubt me, check out some of the better-known atheists, Dawkins, Dennett, Randi, Hitchens, etc; you'll find they agree with me 100%.


3) Someone who is not closed-minded is aware that in English there are many words that have alternate spellings. "Close-minded" is a recognized variant of "closed-minded" as a perusal of the American Heritage Dictionary will verify.

I do indeed realise that, and if you check back, all I did was draw attention to my different spelling. That's what the [sic] does - it's an emphasis, not saying "LOL your wrong!!11!"


You are close-minded because you do not respond with thoughtful analysis and research when your views are challenged.

That is incorrect.

Show me where I've ever done that. Between you and JBI, this thread is looking more fantasy than the bible.

Even better, coming from someone who consistently refuses to even acknowledge questions put to you, I find the idea laughable.


Rather, you merely deny the charges without proof and make further unsubstantiated claims (such as your claim that your definition of atheism is "by far the most widely-accepted description of the term").

Well, the only way that can be substantiated by you is by going and asking - which I know you won't do since it contradicts your cherished opinion.

I'm giving you the benefit of several enormous and well-argued threads at various atheist forums that I've participated in, but as you won't take my word for it, try the following:

James Randi Forum
Richard Dawkins Forum
Internet Infidels Forum.

You will find that the overwhelming opinion agrees with what I've said.

[JBI]

I'll just finish this quickly, because clearly the faceteous posters on this thread are thick, and selective with their quotes, as anyone can see, but from your own mouth:



It's so, so simple:

a + moral = without morals
a + theism = without god/s



You are right, it is so simple A + moral = without morals - what are morals? Who defines what is moral and amoral? If morals do not exist, how can you be without morals?

A + Theism = without gods - originally meaning without the right gods, or better yet, with the wrong gods, as, for instance, the term was used for Catholics in England during the 16th and 17th centuries, changing meanings again in the Enlightenment to come closer to the current meaning, though more often referring to a sort of polemic, wherein the "Atheist" would deny the existence of a creator deity, I. E. The Christian God, which, in the 20th century, seems to have morphed meanings into something which is now akin to a disbelief in all deities.

Now, how can you disbelieve something if you cannot conceptualize it? We created moral codes, quite simply, and we can go against them, and be immoral, or act by no apparent pattern, and be amoral, but the construct of amorality is determined by the construct of morality - you cannot be amoral if morality is thought to exist, as, naturally you cannot lack something that hasn't been conceptualized - morals, which, aren't constant at any rate anyway.

As for Gods then, how can you disbelieve in a God you cannot conceptualize? Are you suggesting then, that ancient Egyptians disbelieved in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, even though they existed thousands of years before him? Seems a bit of a logical fallacy, no? But of course, this post too will be picked at, and broken up, as you are unable to quote paragraphs, as I mentioned before, evidently because it is easier to take things out of context the other way.

Hope this suffices - there is no long without short, no heavy without light, no hot without cold, no disbelief without belief.

[The Atheist]

I'll just finish this quickly, because clearly the faceteous posters on this thread are thick, ...

That closes the argument from my end.

[islandclimber]

I'll just finish this quickly, because clearly the faceteous posters on this thread are thick, and selective with their quotes, as anyone can see, but from your own mouth:



You are right, it is so simple A + moral = without morals - what are morals? Who defines what is moral and amoral? If morals do not exist, how can you be without morals?

A + Theism = without gods - originally meaning without the right gods, or better yet, with the wrong gods, as, for instance, the term was used for Catholics in England during the 16th and 17th centuries, changing meanings again in the Enlightenment to come closer to the current meaning, though more often referring to a sort of polemic, wherein the "Atheist" would deny the existence of a creator deity, I. E. The Christian God, which, in the 20th century, seems to have morphed meanings into something which is now akin to a disbelief in all deities.

Now, how can you disbelieve something if you cannot conceptualize it? We created moral codes, quite simply, and we can go against them, and be immoral, or act by no apparent pattern, and be amoral, but the construct of amorality is determined by the construct of morality - you cannot be amoral if morality is thought to exist, as, naturally you cannot lack something that hasn't been conceptualized - morals, which, aren't constant at any rate anyway.

As for Gods then, how can you disbelieve in a God you cannot conceptualize? Are you suggesting then, that ancient Egyptians disbelieved in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, even though they existed thousands of years before him? Seems a bit of a logical fallacy, no? But of course, this post too will be picked at, and broken up, as you are unable to quote paragraphs, as I mentioned before, evidently because it is easier to take things out of context the other way.

Hope this suffices - there is no long without short, no heavy without light, no hot without cold, no disbelief without belief.


but this is not necessarily true either, as anything which has not been exposed to morals, or theism, such as a baby, a rock, a caterpillar, well these things would be described as amoral and atheist by an outside observer who had been exposed to them.. and yet they are not denying god, or morals, and claiming these things hold no sway over them, they are just "unaware", "without" morals or gods...

now, I will agree that because of humankind's frequent propensity to create gods, atheism has become a a construct of denying the reality of those gods, but this does not mean in the slightest that it cannot also be the position that The Atheist suggests of just being without gods, not so much a denial as a lack of... for it could be turned around to say that believing in gods is just a denial of the a godless universe... and of course to begin with, if we look at evolution god came after man, so the very first "man"/"primate"/"evolutionary step" was an atheist until god was invented (maybe even by him)... so in reality the creation of god is most likely the real negation here, of the original universe with no god.. therefore in it's original meaning "a-theism" literally means without gods, or lacking gods, and has nothing to do with disbelief or negation.. of course before the first creation of a god, the term atheism did not exist, but that is irrelevant, as we would still suggest anyone ignorant of even the idea of a god, unable to conceptualize such a thing, well we would as outside observers call them atheists.. would we not?

I just don't really see the point in arguing this as of course, all humans capable of reasoning can conceptualize god(s)... but I would suggest that this does not necessarily mean atheism can only exist with theism.. only the term atheism cannot exist without theism, the actual meaning of the word can describe any"thing" without gods, whether gods can be conceptualized or not...

[JBI]

Just being without Gods, without the existence of the concept of Gods is not Atheism, it is simply nothing, as there is no name for anything we cannot conceptualize - you need a trace to give words meaning, and thereby, you cannot label things that aren't built on traces - signifier, and signified - the signifier points to other signifiers, which in turn, point to others - you cannot label things just because they fit your agenda - one cannot make up definitions of atheism to suit their own goals and self-righteous banter. The way language works, is it gives a name to a concept - without the concept, there is no name - without a concept of deity, there cannot be a disbelief in it - the term atheism then, is bound to the term theism - the term theism, is bound to religion, religion then, is bound to a tradition, which, in itself, is probably bound to a psychological condition. You cannot skip A B C to get to D, and then claim that A B C do not exist. Atheism is just as much a part of a discourse as theism - people aren't born atheist, and people aren't born amoral (and babies are hardly amoral, they merely function on a different value system) they are measured against other labels.

It is the basic of Aristotelian thought - you label something, and then assign it to categories - that's what Atheism is - it is a label, assigned to a category - the words themselves though aren't real outside of the frame of reference they exist in.

Think of it this way - you put all the people who believe in deities in one box, and then you proclaim yourself as outside the box - without the box, you cannot be outside of the box. But no, there is a self righteous association by some posters on this thread, of being somehow outside of the box, without acknowledging that others are inside the box, or that the box exists? How is that possible - how can you be outside of it, without it being there?

Atheism is understood today, as a disbelief in all deities (contrary to traditional definitions pertaining to certain deities) you cannot disbelieve in something without conceptualizing it - you cannot claim water is cold and not hot meanwhile rejecting the existence of the water - it is merely faulty rhetoric.


Lets be honest - this concept of names clouding the truth is hardly new - it's been around for at least 2400 years (and probably longer). Yet some are so bound to their labels that they cannot approach the argument meanwhile questioning their labels as, in themselves, merely labeled understandings, and therefore subject to the same restrictions of language as applied to everything else.

[Jozanny]

JBI, to the extent that I take your point, I take your point, but no one that I know of is sitting around keeping a scorecard between faith and logic, or stopping you from embracing whatever cultural traditions you chose.

I have a certain nostalgia for the quest and certainty that the Roman church once afforded me, so perhaps to that extent I can understand the pull of LDS even though I rather don't understand what the attraction actually is.

Faith is comforting; materialism isn't, but why the same argument constantly replays itself in a forum for religious texts is beyond me. It's not a chess match.

[jocky]

Athiest, hope I am not pushing the word limit, but why are you trying to intellectualise blatant rubbish. A sense of humour clearly gets thrown out the window, whenever the God word gets mentioned. I, for one have never blamed religion for the worlds troubles, us humans can create mayhem anywhere and anytime without divine intervention. It is quite simplistic when you rationalise human behaviour really, If we come from single celled ameobas in the primordial soup, as Darwiniasm suggests, is it any wonder we have the odd problem or two? Why do some, seemingly intelligent products of natural selection on this thread, argue that everything is down to some divine altruistic force? Maybe I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I am a decent human being and I truely believe that it is down to us to make this world a better place. Athiesm is not, in my opinion, an unintellectual cheap shot, but a valid individual response to a dogmatic set of values that are tearing the world apart. To be a free thinker is not the worst thing, obviously spelling Dawkins wrongly is. :)

[The Atheist]

Athiest, hope I am not pushing the word limit, but why are you trying to intellectualise blatant rubbish.

I try not to actually, these days.

I just find it difficult to let completely incorrect assertions stand. Especially in this forum, because it's the sort of place people might expect to learn something and I like fixing misconceptions.

Whether or not it works, who knows, but it's an easy hobby.


A sense of humour clearly gets thrown out the window, whenever the God word gets mentioned.

That in iteself turns out pretty funny sometimes.


I, for one have never blamed religion for the worlds troubles, us humans can create mayhem anywhere and anytime without divine intervention.

Same. I never bring that subject to the table, because you're absolutely right. It's like blaming Islam for terrorism - it just doesn't work. One thing Stalin & Mao showed us was that you don't need religion to be a despot.


It is quite simplistic when you rationalise human behaviour really, If we come from single celled ameobas in the primordial soup, as Darwiniasm suggests, is it any wonder we have the odd problem or two? Why do some, seemingly intelligent products of natural selection on this thread, argue that everything is down to some divine altruistic force? Maybe I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I am a decent human being and I truely believe that it is down to us to make this world a better place. Athiesm is not, in my opinion, an unintellectual cheap shot, but a valid individual response to a dogmatic set of values that are tearing the world apart. To be a free thinker is not the worst thing, obviously spelling Dawkins wrongly is. :)

I quite often spell it Dorkins, so typos are allowed!

I think the why of religion covers a lot of bases, but the most important thing about belief is that people generally believe what they want to. That's why we have some people out looking for sasquatches (couple of mates of mine do that, crazy buggers!), and up your way, people think a prehistoric monster inhabits one of the lakes. You must be familiar with the film The Day The earth Stood Still? Not the remake last year, but the original.

It was made to play on human fears of nuclear war, and the hope that some greater power would protect us from ourselves. Religion covers the same kind of fears; people are scared of not being alive any more, so accept the notion that a god is going to kiss it all better when we die. Lovely thought - I wish I could believe it. (although I'm not sure how ex-wives come into the package - do they have separate neighbourhoods in heaven?)

[JBI]

It was made to play on human fears of nuclear war, and the hope that some greater power would protect us from ourselves. Religion covers the same kind of fears; people are scared of not being alive any more, so accept the notion that a god is going to kiss it all better when we die. Lovely thought - I wish I could believe it. (although I'm not sure how ex-wives come into the package - do they have separate neighbourhoods in heaven?)

And you accuse me of generalizing or creating a straw man? Which religions exactly? One wouldn't want to accuse you of following the Dawkins bunch in only knowing of two religions, Islam and Christianity. The actual argument of religion as perpetuated by fear only works in some circumstances - the actual truth is though, that I cannot see any connection between fear and belief in, for instance, the Classical Folk Religion of China (which estimates say 400 odd million people believe in, to some degree), are we to say also, that Shinto traditions only exist because people are afraid? or that Jews adhere to the old ways because they are afraid to change (even though the holding to the old ways has, and is, a constant perpetuator of injustice in many regions of this world)?

It all comes down to that Asimov story (can't remember the name) from the beginning of I Robot, where the robot in the space ship is convinced he is the superior being, and is convinced he is at the centre of the world, meanwhile is required to ensure the survival of the satellite, and the earth - and, despite not understanding anything, still manages to do his job fine, even though he does it for bizarre reasons. The point is, in the end the job gets done - who cares what the motivation is - why should anyone care what other people choose to believe in, unless it begins to effect someone else?

The fact that, according to your above post, you make a sort of hobby of it, in truth, seems like the exact opposite; I am not thinking it is too maverick a position to think that perhaps you commit the exact same offense that you accuse such theists of committing, that of raining on everyone's parade for the sake of perpetuating a single belief system, I won't accuse you of that, for Brutus is an honorable man, but I can see how people would.

Now don't get me wrong, I like to yell at people who come cutting and pasting cuttings into public forums, which, is against the rules keep in mind, but I am not about to tell people they are idiots for believing in it, or that they are afraid of some cruel world, or whatever - so, in truth, the rationalist response to preachers, and imposers of opinions, who don't like to listen, and merely like to rant and make "a hobby" out of coming on public forums to preach, is to call them immature, annoying ignoramuses, with perhaps nothing to really offer besides some cheap jokes, fancily worded rhetoric, and downright boring pages of Onanist tripe, but They Are All Honorable men.

[jocky]

Athiest, I would have done the quote thing, but as you are well aware by now I am a computer illiterate. As to the loch Ness issue, I have never seen it but I nearly caught it. It can actually speak, it told me clearly I was a product of cold war paranoia, at that point I let it go. Bloody Russians! Sasquatch versus Nessie with God as the intermediary, surely some Japanese director will direct it. How is Athiest minor doing, wont be long before I get booted of this thread also? It is all getting to clever for me. Hitchens is a brilliant orator and writer though, just shows you what a public school education can achieve. Thank God,(wrong word) I never recieved one. :)

[jocky]

And you accuse me of generalizing or creating a straw man? Which religions exactly? One wouldn't want to accuse you of following the Dawkins bunch in only knowing of two religions, Islam and Christianity. The actual argument of religion as perpetuated by fear only works in some circumstances - the actual truth is though, that I cannot see any connection between fear and belief in, for instance, the Classical Folk Religion of China (which estimates say 400 odd million people believe in, to some degree), are we to say also, that Shinto traditions only exist because people are afraid? or that Jews adhere to the old ways because they are afraid to change (even though the holding to the old ways has, and is, a constant perpetuator of injustice in many regions of this world)?

It all comes down to that Asimov story (can't remember the name) from the beginning of I Robot, where the robot in the space ship is convinced he is the superior being, and is convinced he is at the centre of the world, meanwhile is required to ensure the survival of the satellite, and the earth - and, despite not understanding anything, still manages to do his job fine, even though he does it for bizarre reasons. The point is, in the end the job gets done - who cares what the motivation is - why should anyone care what other people choose to believe in, unless it begins to effect someone else?

The fact that, according to your above post, you make a sort of hobby of it, in truth, seems like the exact opposite; I am not thinking it is too maverick a position to think that perhaps you commit the exact same offense that you accuse such theists of committing, that of raining on everyone's parade for the sake of perpetuating a single belief system, I won't accuse you of that, for Brutus is an honorable man, but I can see how people would.

Now don't get me wrong, I like to yell at people who come cutting and pasting cuttings into public forums, which, is against the rules keep in mind, but I am not about to tell people they are idiots for believing in it, or that they are afraid of some cruel world, or whatever - so, in truth, the rationalist response to preachers, and imposers of opinions, who don't like to listen, and merely like to rant and make "a hobby" out of coming on public forums to preach, is to call them immature, annoying ignoramuses, with perhaps nothing to really offer besides some cheap jokes, fancily worded rhetoric, and downright boring pages of Onanist tripe, but They Are All Honorable men.

Listen why are you bringing Shakespeare and Brutus into the discussion? I dont remember Shakespeare ever giving an opinion on theological issues and Brutus was anything but honorable. What are you on about ' against the rules '? Your crack about , 'annoying ignoramuses' needs a fuller explanation. maybe you have broken some rules. I dont recall anyone in this thread calling anyone an idiot. As for ' fancy worded rhetoric ' you seem to have made that your own idiom ' rationalist response to preachers, and imposerers of opinion' What is your problem, and I am sure Azimov would not have appreciated being drawn into this one, and as for Onanist tripe get a life? Is this your response to someone arguing against divinity, 500,0000 Chinese , please just get back to the argument.

[jocky]

(although I'm not sure how ex-wives come into the package - do they have separate neighbourhoods in heaven?)

Athiest, you have done it again, I am Thick, Scottish, Unquoter, Motherless, I can forgive all that, but to hell with bringing up ex-wives that is unforgiveable. :lol::lol::lol:

[JuniperWoolf]

Not to butt in, but don't you guys ever get bored of having the same conversations over and over? Is it a pride thing?

[JBI]

Listen why are you bringing Shakespeare and Brutus into the discussion? I dont remember Shakespeare ever giving an opinion on theological issues and Brutus was anything but honorable. What are you on about ' against the rules '? Your crack about , 'annoying ignoramuses' needs a fuller explanation. maybe you have broken some rules. I dont recall anyone in this thread calling anyone an idiot. As for ' fancy worded rhetoric ' you seem to have made that your own idiom ' rationalist response to preachers, and imposerers of opinion' What is your problem, and I am sure Azimov would not have appreciated being drawn into this one, and as for Onanist tripe get a life? Is this your response to someone arguing against divinity, 500,0000 Chinese , please just get back to the argument.

Dude, take it easy - I hold nothing against you, I use such a term because, quite simply, three strikes and you're out - and I have 30 already, so I don't need the Banninator bringing down her hammer on me. Seriously, sorry if perhaps my language isn't clear, but I am deliberately bypassing saying anything that would get me banned, so you may perhaps have to read more closely, or ignore my comments - as for "Brutus is an Honorable Man" that is from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and was chosen because, given its general familiarity, especially on a literary forum, serves its purposes of being a perfect ironic statement.

Relax - there is no need to personalize attacks.


As for Shakespeare never contemplating these issues though, perhaps one may need to reread him.

[jocky]

Not to butt in, but don't you guys ever get bored of having the same conversations over and over? Is it a pride thing?

Absolutely, no seriously Juniper, sense of humour goes out the window in a God thread. If you are not spot on with your use of language, even people who agree with your basic proposition will be down your throat. Even me and athiest have disagreements about what athiesm means. I think it is simplistic non belief in the supernatural, while athiest thinks it is more complex but he puts up a better case for it than I ever could. Put it this way, on the God or Gods side you have wonderful texts, St Paul etc etc and it is hard to go against wonderful ideas and beautiful language, but look around you and you see a different reality. It is just that I feel religious certainty of any persuasion needs to be vigorously challenged.

[jocky]

Dude, take it easy - I hold nothing against you, I use such a term because, quite simply, three strikes and you're out - and I have 30 already, so I don't need the Banninator bringing down her hammer on me. Seriously, sorry if perhaps my language isn't clear, but I am deliberately bypassing saying anything that would get me banned, so you may perhaps have to read more closely, or ignore my comments - as for "Brutus is an Honorable Man" that is from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and was chosen because, given its general familiarity, especially on a literary forum, serves its purposes of being a perfect ironic statement.

Relax - there is no need to personalize attacks.


As for Shakespeare never contemplating these issues though, perhaps one may need to reread him.

JBI , Pissing off Jocky will get us banned together. I was not aware that I made a personal attack on you, Just that I disagreed with some of the points you made. As for rereading Shakespeare that may take some time. My point about the Bard was though he maybe told it as he saw it he was never judgemental. Romeo and Juliet an incomparable love story, but they would have hated the sight of each other after a few years. Hamlet, my favourite play, but he was some F..k up. Lear was old , no further explanation needed. MacBeth, one of ours, end of story. Titus Andronicus......... needless to say the greatest writer of the age never commented on the God controversy. Wise old Willie.

[Jozanny]

Absolutely, no seriously Juniper, sense of humour goes out the window in a God thread. If you are not spot on with your use of language, even people who agree with your basic proposition will be down your throat. Even me and athiest have disagreements about what athiesm means. I think it is simplistic non belief in the supernatural, while athiest thinks it is more complex but he puts up a better case for it than I ever could. Put it this way, on the God or Gods side you have wonderful texts, St Paul etc etc and it is hard to go against wonderful ideas and beautiful language, but look around you and you see a different reality. It is just that I feel religious certainty of any persuasion needs to be vigorously challenged.

Vigorously challenged or taken too seriously? Susan Sontang's son claims his mother over-reacted to believers. Aside from which, this argument goes on and on in posting software. Perhaps Atheist and JBI both need to remember that actual, physical civic engagement can be a powerful thing, as opposed to typing the same points over and over electronically.

My professor once summed up Hegel for me as "We need to look at the things themselves." Without ever fully understanding Hegel, I adopt this assertion. I prefer to look at the things themselves and leave what I believe as what I believe, and not what I am going to impose on you.

***
My point is that this sub-forum is for religious texts, and though I am not one to play topic cop, and it would be hypocritical if I did, maybe we can all stop pontificating and post about the texts, like mature individuals? Anyone can search my posts and discover my dislike of Christianity--but it is not the primary goal of my life to shred its salvation-triumphalist themes on a daily basis, and there would probably be something wrong with me if I did, because it is merely a way to live, and probably eases the way we die, like other religions which have gone before it, surround it, and will come after it.

I joked with my guy the other day that Michael Jackson seems to be well on his way to deification, and so what? Religions are human systems, like any other, like materialism too, in fact.

[jocky]

Vigorously challenged or taken too seriously? Susan Sontang's son claims his mother over-reacted to believers. Aside from which, this argument goes on and on in posting software. Perhaps Atheist and JBI both need to remember that actual, physical civic engagement can be a powerful thing, as opposed to typing the same points over and over electronically.

My professor once summed up Hegel for me as "We need to look at the things themselves." Without ever fully understanding Hegel, I adopt this assertion. I prefer to look at the things themselves and leave what I believe as what I believe, and not what I am going to impose on you.

***
My point is that this sub-forum is for religious texts, and though I am not one to play topic cop, and it would be hypocritical if I did, maybe we can all stop pontificating and post about the texts, like mature individuals? Anyone can search my posts and discover my dislike of Christianity--but it is not the primary goal of my life to shred its salvation-triumphalist themes on a daily basis, and there would probably be something wrong with me if I did, because it is merely a way to live, and probably eases the way we die, like other religions which have gone before it, surround it, and will come after it.

I joked with my guy the other day that Michael Jackson seems to be well on his way to deification, and so what? Religions are human systems, like any other, like materialism too, in fact.

Hegel and Wacko mentioned on the same post, that took some doing! Point taken, Jocky will quietly retire from this debate. I would have happily continued, but the mere mention of materialism brought on a sudden headache. ;)

[Jozanny]

I am not trying to silence anyone jockey, merely asking if it would not be more interesting to debate the material, rather than each other and our belief systems, that's all. Merely as a practical matter, the regulars already know each other's positions, and no doubt can reiterate them with a little effort with ease. I think JBI does have a valid point about the tit for tat. To get beyond that we could actually read and discuss texts, which seems to me to be a more useful exercise on a site which makes literary texts freely available.

Truth is, after all, a relative value with no absolute.

[JBI]

I am not trying to silence anyone jockey, merely asking if it would not be more interesting to debate the material, rather than each other and our belief systems, that's all. Merely as a practical matter, the regulars already know each other's positions, and no doubt can reiterate them with a little effort with ease. I think JBI does have a valid point about the tit for tat. To get beyond that we could actually read and discuss texts, which seems to me to be a more useful exercise on a site which makes literary texts freely available.

Truth is, after all, a relative value with no absolute.

What's the point really - copy and pasting is illegal, so I see no reason why this thread shouldn't have been locked in the first place - someone's near death experience that they are posting all over the web is not really much of a discussion now is it - the personal, the sublime experience is, by nature personal, therefore, in a sense the only real purpose of such a post would be to convince people to believe in said story - which is ridiculous, and silly, since this is a public forum, but there you have it. It's just a shame that people can't discuss anything besides their own egos.

[Jozanny]

I did not read the OP's post, and did not realize it was lifted, but I doubt those abuses ever stop. A few years ago, when I was active with New Mobility, I made the mistake of trying their forum, and it made my past sins in other places look real tame. A pair of trolls copied my posts and an old picture. At the end of the day, it was better to leave, and I've never returned, and engaging the board probably wasn't wise, given my publishing aspirations. But that might be my paranoia misjudging the importance of my mouth :)

[jocky]

I am not trying to silence anyone jockey, merely asking if it would not be more interesting to debate the material, rather than each other and our belief systems, that's all. Merely as a practical matter, the regulars already know each other's positions, and no doubt can reiterate them with a little effort with ease. I think JBI does have a valid point about the tit for tat. To get beyond that we could actually read and discuss texts, which seems to me to be a more useful exercise on a site which makes literary texts freely available.

Truth is, after all, a relative value with no absolute.

On the point of debating the material, Jocky will retain a dignified silence. Me and my pal GBH, sorry I mean JBI have one thing in common, at least we bothered to read the original post. Plagiarism aint what it used to be. Truth may be relative, but it helps if you actually read the original point. Apart from that you got me, love from the novice Jocky. :)

[The Atheist]

And you accuse me of generalizing or creating a straw man? Which religions exactly? One wouldn't want to accuse you of following the Dawkins bunch in only knowing of two religions, Islam and Christianity.

Come now, JBI, surely you don't think christianity and islam are the only two religions with an afterlife?

Aside from the obvious Hindu and Buddhist sects, yes there are odd folk religions in China, as well as Shinto. The ones I've looked at practice life-after-death-belief as part of their doctrine, so I'm pretty happy making that generalisation. Feel free to list those religions which do not believe in some kind of immortality or reincarnation and I'll make an exception for them.


The point is, in the end the job gets done - who cares what the motivation is - why should anyone care what other people choose to believe in, unless it begins to effect someone else?

Bingo!

You hit the nail on the head - religion does not just not affect its adherents. Surely, you've heard of Dover at least?

When religion stops challenging science, stops attempting to get creationism taught as fact, and all the other lunacy inspired by religion is finished, you won't find atheists saying a word.

Until then, I imagine most of us will reserve our right to challenge the irrational.


.... is to call them immature, annoying ignoramuses, with perhaps nothing to really offer besides some cheap jokes, fancily worded rhetoric, and downright boring pages of Onanist tripe, but They Are All Honorable men.

Two things:

Where have called anyone an ignoramus or immature?

For the thrid time in this thread you've made assertions about what I've said that are all fabrications.

Nice. Yet I'm the Onanist...


As to the loch Ness issue, I have never seen it but I nearly caught it. It can actually speak, it told me clearly I was a product of cold war paranoia, at that point I let it go.

Haha! It lied.

My dear old mum was actually in Loch Ness in the early 1930s when the plot was hatched to ressurrect the old legend. Any means, fair or foul...


How is Athiest minor doing, wont be long before I get booted of this thread also? It is all getting to clever for me. Hitchens is a brilliant orator and writer though, just shows you what a public school education can achieve. Thank God,(wrong word) I never recieved one. :)

Little one is fine!

You and me both on the public schools, too.


Athiest, you have done it again, I am Thick, Scottish, Unquoter, Motherless, I can forgive all that, but to hell with bringing up ex-wives that is unforgiveable. :lol::lol::lol:

They go to hell? Sounds right to me!


Not to butt in, but don't you guys ever get bored of having the same conversations over and over? Is it a pride thing?

Only to the extent that I said before - and you'll note that I haven't really argued religion or god/s that much here - that I won't allow assertions as to the meaning of "atheism" to stand unchallenged.

What I said to JBI applies as well. Religionistas have proven time and again that if they remain unchallenged, they'd have us back burning witches* in no time.

* just for the uninitiated, "burning witches" is a metaphor


My point is that this sub-forum is for religious texts, and though I am not one to play topic cop, and it would be hypocritical if I did, maybe we can all stop pontificating and post about the texts, like mature individuals?

Nope, that's long since been covered. Religion and religious, non-textual matters are free for discussion here.

Have you read the sticky thread at the top of the forum page?

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410


What's the point really - copy and pasting is illegal, ...

I think you'll find that's wrong as well in this case. The rule applies to someone else's work, and since the OP is the work of the poster, he's quite welcome to post it for discussion. That's he's posted it elsewhere as well is irrelevant.

[Jozanny]

On the point of debating the material, Jocky will retain a dignified silence. Me and my pal GBH, sorry I mean JBI have one thing in common, at least we bothered to read the original post. Plagiarism aint what it used to be. Truth may be relative, but it helps if you actually read the original point. Apart from that you got me, love from the novice Jocky. :)

Whoa. I meant maybe we should use this forum as was intended, rather than believers using it to write bad inspirational posts and non-believers constipating ourselves. I have no interest in the OP's sentiments, taken from another community, or whatever the violation.

Interacting on this forum has had an influence on me, to the extent that I have my doubts about seeing atheism as a legitimate advocacy issue. Relentlessness can be a double-edged sword, and being dogmatic to the point of nothing else has made me stop listening.

I refuse to deal in anymore deity/non-deity debates, and will use this forum as it was intended, to discuss religious texts.

[jocky]

Whoa. I meant maybe we should use this forum as was intended, rather than believers using it to write bad inspirational posts and non-believers constipating ourselves. I have no interest in the OP's sentiments, taken from another community, or whatever the violation.

Interacting on this forum has had an influence on me, to the extent that I have my doubts about seeing atheism as a legitimate advocacy issue. Relentlessness can be a double-edged sword, and being dogmatic to the point of nothing else has made me stop listening.

I refuse to deal in anymore deity/non-deity debates, and will use this forum as it was intended, to discuss religious texts.

No arguing with that Jozanny, I was not having a go rather a giggle. ' legitamate advocacy issue', sounds like lawyer speak to me. On the first day...... And your point is! Come on Jozanny I am only joshing, but the world has had more than enough religious texts! Are we not entitled to challenge religious discussions, which have caused a fair bit of suffering through the centuries? :)

[Jozanny]

No arguing with that Jozanny, I was not having a go rather a giggle. ' legitamate advocacy issue', sounds like lawyer speak to me. On the first day...... And your point is! Come on Jozanny I am only joshing, but the world has had more than enough religious texts! Are we not entitled to challenge religious discussions, which have caused a fair bit of suffering through the centuries? :)

I was going to go to law school actually:) But, serious question, what is your goal in challenging proselytizers here? In communities like this, it is counterproductive, in my estimation. I write articles, and save my thunder.

[jocky]

Well if you save your thunder, I would hate to see what your like when you dont! My point is that when I was younger, the God mob never left us alone, family, school, friends, activities, nothing was out of bounds. They were in charge of the agenda and had all the spiritual and intellectual weaponry at hand. Everything was measured against a morality which was unattainable. Perhaps it is just the freedom to fight back. It was like living in a moral hegemony. Dont get me wrong, people are entitled to their views, spiritual or intellectual, but dont be surprised when some of us deny the freedom to express oneselves unchallenged, when we were denied the same opportunity. now thats my useless explanation, whats yours? :)

[Judas130]

I had a few quotes by Michael Martin and Theodore M. Drange, but after talk of it being illegal to paste such, i've removed it.


The way language works, is it gives a name to a concept - without the concept, there is no name - without a concept of deity, there cannot be a disbelief in it - the term atheism then, is bound to the term theism - the term theism, is bound to religion, religion then, is bound to a tradition, which, in itself, is probably bound to a psychological condition. You cannot skip A B C to get to D, and then claim that A B C do not exist. Atheism is just as much a part of a discourse as theism - people aren't born atheist, and people aren't born amoral (and babies are hardly amoral, they merely function on a different value system) they are measured against other labels.

Atheism CAN be the other side of the coin to theism, but it doesn't have to be. If you view Atheism as a two-tier system of positive and negative thought then perhaps we might better understand what it is you and Atheist have been quarrelling over. The Positive atheist asserts that there is no God, having conceptualised it and having thus refuted it. The negative atheist, or Nontheist is without any belief in God - it would be better to call a baby a nontheist, for he hasn't reasoned the existence of God, he just doesn't know of the concept yet. What I am confused by, is what you are arguing for or against - is it for agnosticism and against atheism? Agnostics wait for proof or disproof before they conclude, atheists have concluded already. If the agnostic wants proof, then all he must do is look to theist texts and challenge and reason with the claims made and at the end of the day when all internally based ideals have withered apart, one comes down to arguments based on some external reality and the agnostic questions 'we do not know' and so does an atheist, but all the difference is is in what an atheist will say next: 'i have no experience of the external, neither does the theist nor the agnostic, there is no proof nor disproof, but I do not live there, and God is certainly not here, so why believe it?'.
Sure, an atheist needs to conceptualise a deity to wave it away, just as we conceptualise elves and unicorns (sorry), if an atheist does need a definition of a God to dismiss it, at least we can agree that God exists in our mind. Yet when an atheist comes to the question of what is real in the world, then concepts of deities are an irrelevant indulgence.



Think of it this way - you put all the people who believe in deities in one box, and then you proclaim yourself as outside the box - without the box, you cannot be outside of the box. But no, there is a self righteous association by some posters on this thread, of being somehow outside of the box, without acknowledging that others are inside the box, or that the box exists? How is that possible - how can you be outside of it, without it being there?

Perhaps atheism is what communism is for socialism. Perhaps atheism is the catalyst for nontheism - but if we are ignorant of religion, it will come back, and the cycle will continue. What you have said is really buggin me. Is agnosticism more rationally sound that atheism?
Theists argue cognitively, asserting that their religious statements are real and can be found in the world, and thus i assumed that atheists were the opposite, noncognitive, because they do not hold religious statements as true
but i've realised that an atheist is cognitive because he holds real that there is no God, and that evidence for this can be found in the world, so atheism and theism are of the same cognition. This is a grim thought for me personally.

Hume would say that to think of God in the mind is exactly the same as to think of God in reality. Because it is not possible to take an idea in one's mind, apply pure logic to that idea, and reach a conclusion that is based entirely in the external observable universe, eg 'God exists' (and 'God doesn't exist'). So all a theist or an atheist is doing, is thinking about God - not providing grounds for God existing or not existing.

How can atheism cover its back? I'd like Atheist to give me a hand hopefully.
peace

[The Atheist]

Dont get me wrong, people are entitled to their views, spiritual or intellectual, but dont be surprised when some of us deny the freedom to express oneselves unchallenged, when we were denied the same opportunity. now thats my useless explanation, whats yours? :)

Crikey, any more writing like that and we'll have to change you into the "literate" group!


I had a few quotes by Michael Martin and Theodore M. Drange, but after talk of it being illegal to paste such, i've removed it.

No, you're getting confused here because JBI isn't entirely right.

You cannot cut and paste whole articles, but this forum, like all others, works under "gair use" guidelines where parts can be copied as long as links to the whole are given. I do just this myself further down the page.


...- it would be better to call a baby a nontheist, for he hasn't reasoned the existence of God, he just doesn't know of the concept yet.

No, and I say no on two counts:

It's crumbling under pressure from theists and agnostics who refuse to accept the reality of what "atheist" actually means.

It's inventing a word unnecessarily. Refer to the George Orwell forum for clarification.

:)


Sure, an atheist needs to conceptualise a deity to wave it away, just as we conceptualise elves and unicorns (sorry), if an atheist does need a definition of a God to dismiss it, at least we can agree that God exists in our mind. Yet when an atheist comes to the question of what is real in the world, then concepts of deities are an irrelevant indulgence.

I don't agree that we have to know what god/s are before saying we don't believe in them. Let's say we meet up with an alien race who are also theists. Before I've even heard of their god/s, I have a default position of not believing in them as to believe in them I would have to see evidence that they exist, so "I don't know" just doesn't do it.


This is a grim thought for me personally.

I just think you're wrong, but each to his own.


So all a theist or an atheist is doing, is thinking about God - not providing grounds for God existing or not existing.

How can atheism cover its back? I'd like Atheist to give me a hand hopefully.
peace

I don't think atheists think about god at all. That's kind of the whole point. We tend to think about claims made on some god's behalf, but no more.

__________________________________________________ ____________


Just an interesting one from today's news which emphasises why atheists attack christianity:


A Christian faith-healing clinic has opened in Christchurch offering to cure cancer, broken bones and mental illness through prayer.

The New Zealand Healing Rooms clinic in Worcester St, Linwood, is set up like a doctor's surgery, with a waiting room leading to treatment rooms, where two pastors and divine-healing technicians pray for patients.

Pastor Marie Rea said they used "aggressive" prayer techniques based on the teachings of Canadian evangelist John Lake.

link (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/2746510/Faith-healers-attack-cancer-with-prayer)

Now, New Zealand has had several children die in recent years because their parents have chosen to pray rather than use science-based medicine. Some of those parents have rightly been imprisoned for their stupidity.

Without challenges from rational people, these disgraceful ideas would grow and become more popular than they already are and more children would die.

If we all sit back and smugly parrot "We don't know", it's as good as giving a free pass to the deluded scum who promulagte this kind of lunacy.

It reminds me of Edmund Burke's famous comment about those who sit and do nothing in the face of evil.

[Judas130]

No, and I say no on two counts:

It's crumbling under pressure from theists and agnostics who refuse to accept the reality of what "atheist" actually means.

It's inventing a word unnecessarily. Refer to the George Orwell forum for clarification.

:)

I wouldn't mind hearing your arguments and reasoning against theism from your viewpoint at some time, if you have the patience to give them - after all, its personal to you and also what is personal to you is not my business - I just mean for the purpose of education, if you have ideas you wouldn't mind sharing for other atheists.




I don't agree that we have to know what god/s are before saying we don't believe in them. Let's say we meet up with an alien race who are also theists. Before I've even heard of their god/s, I have a default position of not believing in them as to believe in them I would have to see evidence that they exist, so "I don't know" just doesn't do it.

Sure, one can dismiss a deity simply when someone begins to converse about one, or if you read the first sentence on a history of ancient Egyptian mythology and think 'naah'. Many atheists seem to say 'lets move away from talking about religion, lets see what we can reason about without a god', but those other atheists who try to tackle religious arguments from the inside out are probably the ones I'm referring to for they must grasp the claims and concepts, as well as the intricacies/contradictions/paradoxes/axioms, before refusing them - and i think this is the atheist many theists think they see, because the theist must contemplate God to say he exists, so the theist would claim the same for how an atheist shows disbelief - like Anselm and his noting of the 'fool' in the psalm. I dislike the ontological argument. ;)

What you suggest here is that man has a default position of disbelief, unlike that of the agnostic who says 'I don't know', okay. So without knowledge of their concepts, man professes a default position of thought that denies their concepts? This is a little confusing, like looking at a wall where there is a random holy book on the other side, and saying, without knowledge of the random holy book on the other side, that all within that holy book is false.



I don't think atheists think about god at all. That's kind of the whole point. We tend to think about claims made on some god's behalf, but no more.

This is true, perhaps the ideas of Hume apply only to theism. I understand that to say 'i dont believe' doesn't require an age of thought dissecting concepts of God, and it shouldn't have to, but I feel what I personally need to do is go and study the topic clearly. I don't believe and so I call myself an atheist, but there is a lot of reason involved which I haven't yet grasped. Reasoning that appears when 'i dont believe' becomes 'there is no God', much like 'i do believe' becomes 'there is a God'....:crash:




If we all sit back and smugly parrot "We don't know", it's as good as giving a free pass to the deluded scum who promulgate this kind of lunacy.

Indeed, for evil to triumph, good must remain silent. I don't think all Christians would think these ideas however - its all down to the fundamentalists, or just theists who seek change in the world, and to influence others with what they believe. Its one thing to have faith, this is a mechanism in our brains, but its another to assert ones faith as fact upon others. Would it be morally okay for an atheist to deny these people their belief that prayer can help? Perhaps yes when it concerns their children and their elderly, and perhaps no when it concerns their own bodies.
peace

[The Atheist]

I wouldn't mind hearing your arguments and reasoning against theism from your viewpoint at some time, if you have the patience to give them - after all, its personal to you and also what is personal to you is not my business - I just mean for the purpose of education, if you have ideas you wouldn't mind sharing for other atheists.

I think you'll get most of them on the way through...

;)


Sure, one can dismiss a deity simply when someone begins to converse about one, or if you read the first sentence on a history of ancient Egyptian mythology and think 'naah'. Many atheists seem to say 'lets move away from talking about religion, lets see what we can reason about without a god', but those other atheists who try to tackle religious arguments from the inside out are probably the ones I'm referring to for they must grasp the claims and concepts, as well as the intricacies/contradictions/paradoxes/axioms, before refusing them - and i think this is the atheist many theists think they see, because the theist must contemplate God to say he exists, so the theist would claim the same for how an atheist shows disbelief - like Anselm and his noting of the 'fool' in the psalm. I dislike the ontological argument. ;)

I think you're still getting bogged down in what you call "positive atheism" and what is referred to elsewhere as "strong atheism"; those who need a doctrine to deny. There aren't actually that many of that variety around. Even Dawkins - who seems to be the poster-child for strong atheism - only rates himself as a 6.9 atheist on a scale of 1 (god exists) to 7 (god/s do not exist). He doesn't deny god/s' existence, he just says it's very, very, very unlikely that any exist.

In my case - and most of the people I talk to - it's the same. Every god so far posited has been shown to be a human construct, therefore until evidence is presented to show that a god exists, I don't believe any exist. To take that position, I don't need to know which ones I don't believe in.

It works like this: Theists have no agreement whatsoever on god/s. Christians, islam, Judaism, Hinduism, all religions have wide differences, but even within one religion - christianity - the number of points they agree with are incredibly small.

I ran a survey which showed that, in christianity, the only unanimous agreement was that a god exists and that Jesus is important.

That's it! Not one more thing could christians agree on. They cannot agree on whether Jesus was a man or a god, whether he was ressurrected bodily or spiritually, or even whether that was true! My good pal, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has publicly stated that one need not have any beliefs beyond "I want to love god" to join his church. To me, arguing the toss about what someone needs to know about a religion before saying "Nah, sorry, I don't believe in it" is beyond naive. You cannot argue logically against a single religion, because as soon as you do, there's another with slightly different theology behind it pops up, and you can't argue against all of them at once because they're so different.

To me, 10,000 years down the track since man first dreamt up the idea that a sky-daddy is behind it all, there hasn't been one single shred of evidence which makes me think any of it might be true. To then suggest I must investigate and learn about any gods I haven't heard of is patently absurd. It's a typical refuge of the "god of the gaps" crowd.

I factor into that the blatant fraud perpetrated in the name of churches even in 2009 - Holy Fire, healing as my link above, and even that idiotic church where some godly force makes the wafer-tray rise a couple of centimetres, among many others. If the religionistas are so damned sure, why do they perpetrate such blatant cheats on unsuspecting n00bs?


What you suggest here is that man has a default position of disbelief, unlike that of the agnostic who says 'I don't know', okay. So without knowledge of their concepts, man professes a default position of thought that denies their concepts? This is a little confusing, like looking at a wall where there is a random holy book on the other side, and saying, without knowledge of the random holy book on the other side, that all within that holy book is false.

Yes, it does look a little confusing, but think about the example of aliens with gods. Also, as to the agnostic position, note that no attempt to answer which of the list of gods I provided we should be agonstic about has been made.

Given that we will never know anything outside of our own experience, we would never make any progress if agnostics ruled the roost. Funnily enough, most of the actual agnostics I know are actually theists, and several Anglican bishops profess agnosticism.

Also, don't confuse gods with holy books. Quite a few holy books do contain some clever stuff. It's only when people use those holy books to try to prove their god's existence, or that it's divinely right, that the dirt hits the fan.

There are more than a few inconsistencies in the bible, as I'm sure you're aware.


This is true, perhaps the ideas of Hume apply only to theism. I understand that to say 'i dont believe' doesn't require an age of thought dissecting concepts of God, and it shouldn't have to, but I feel what I personally need to do is go and study the topic clearly. I don't believe and so I call myself an atheist, but there is a lot of reason involved which I haven't yet grasped. Reasoning that appears when 'i dont believe' becomes 'there is no God', much like 'i do believe' becomes 'there is a God'....:crash:

You need to check out Pascal's Wager. It's probably the prime example of why logic fails in the debate - because we can never know, it's safer to believe. Personally, I think it just explains why Pascal wasn't a bookie.



Indeed, for evil to triumph, good must remain silent. I don't think all Christians would think these ideas however - its all down to the fundamentalists, or just theists who seek change in the world, and to influence others with what they believe. Its one thing to have faith, this is a mechanism in our brains, but its another to assert ones faith as fact upon others. Would it be morally okay for an atheist to deny these people their belief that prayer can help? Perhaps yes when it concerns their children and their elderly, and perhaps no when it concerns their own bodies.
peace

Several points here:

First off, those fundamental christians stand on the shoulders of theists and agnostics who don't chastise them.

The "It's only fundies" defence only works if fundies are a small number of insignificant christians. Alas, they are not, and evangelical Protestantism is the fastest-growing religion in many countries. In UK, NZ and Australia, I'm pretty sure those pentecostals are the only growth group in religion.

As to the argument of "it's their own bodies", I agree, but the world doesn't generally, since we have laws to protect the individual from himself already.

Also, it isn't just that person's own risk to be counted. Note in the article that the faith healers recommend still going the doctor. You can bet your last dollar that many people who are cured by medicine will insist it's the prayer which worked, and will say so. Going from experience, they're likely to say so often and loudly.

This is why I laugh at agnostics trying to paint atheists as crusaders. Agnosticism is a beautifully correct high-school debating position, but it doesn't live in the real world. In that real world, churches lie, cheat, risk people's lives and try to enforce teaching of their doctrines to kids.

When all that stops, I will unquestionably withdraw from the discussion. You could check out every piece of writing I've ever produced and not find one place where I denigrate liberal christians (e.g. Anglicanism) or Buddhism. That might give you an idea as to why the idea crusading atheists is just plain silly.

[Judas130]

You've taken the time to answer my questions, and I thank you for that - I particularly enjoyed your last comment on agnosticism - all of this helped me well :D

peace :thumbs_up

[Three Sparrows]

Hmmm.....
But if there is no God, how did people come to be? Evolution just makes no sense to me. If you believe in the existence of God and reject Him, you would just be embracing pain and suffering. Or if you believe there is no life after death, how pointless and meaningless life would be! If I believed that, I think I would die of depression.
Also, I don't think the belief in God can be compared to old mythology, but maybe you just think wrongfully that God is a myth.
I can't say I agree with you, but it is your own will to decide what to accept, and what not to.
For my part, I accept God with all my heart, and I wish others could see his greatness.

[The Atheist]

Hmmm.....
But if there is no God, how did people come to be? Evolution just makes no sense to me.

Alas, it makes so much sense and has so much scientific fact behind it that even most of the world's major religions embrace it. You're free to believe or disbelieve, but the same science which created the electricity and computer you used to type your message says that it's verifiably real.


If you believe in the existence of God and reject Him, you would just be embracing pain and suffering.

I can understand you thinking that way, but as millions of atheists, humanists and other non-religious people can attest to, having no gods doesn't increase either pain or suffering.

[Judas130]

if you believe there is no life after death, how pointless and meaningless life would be! If I believed that, I think I would die of depression.

An innate human longing in a person for a deity does not suggest evidence for it's existence, it just suggests that one has a longing. It seems you see evolution as a threat to your deity, and for many reasoning and doubt are the key factors that break a person's faith. Personally, when I lost my faith I felt crestfallen, and a tad empty - but this was all addiction, it was like going cold turkey from nicotine. Now, I see how pointless a life can be if you do no living now and adhere to that which is subjective and not universal to your understanding, while you have the chance to really live, instead of waiting for the afterlife where 'the party is at'.
Its the question of what does one do when one loses their invisible friend, in the end its just about what gets us all from A to B quicker. If people want to spend their time genuflecting and blessing themselves or asking an invisible force for forgiveness for the way they were actually created (animalistic) then this is fine, if it makes one happier - just don't come knocking on my door asking me to do the same. In the same way, if one wants to live how one wants without fearing repercussions and living by what one knows physically, then so be it - the only real reasons non-believers are challenging the religious system is because of 'creationism as fact' and the ignorance this may cause, and when people sacrifice reason for madness seen in Atheist's links he has posted, and also since 9/11 there has been a resurgence in atheistic thought.
Personally I have more respect for someone who goes to a lesser economically developed country to help install a water-well in a village just because one can - and DOES NOT proceed to say, 'God did this for you, tomorrow we shall build a church here, stop worshipping your tribal gods, and leave this culture behind you, we're right and you're wrong'. Its disgusting how as faith leaves the secularising countries, it makes its presence felt in those who need reassurance to live their lives - and this is a form of psychological globalisation and it doesn't get things solved..

:crash:

[blazeofglory]

We have heard or read so many tales like this and one cannot beleive them so easily.

[Neilius]

In articles and stories, such as the first post in this thread, there is always the word 'vibration'.

It does'nt mean anything!

I've read many, many NDE's and a lot have common characteristics with underlying motives towards the promotion of a religion.
Indeed, many of these stories are used as a prostletizing tool by evangelicals.


Another thing; There is nearly always something left out, so that the reader, once he/she is interested and wanting more information, or answers as to what happened next, are left either with silence, or are encouraged to buy something.

Finally, if there is an afterlife, then great!
If there is'nt, then great! Because I will be the last person to find out i'm dead. And I'm not going to worry about what comes hereafter when i'm living now.

Someone once said that a person who lives his/her life, looking forward to the next one, isnt living at all, but is worshipping death.

[blazeofglory]

In articles and stories, such as the first post in this thread, there is always the word 'vibration'.

It does'nt mean anything!

I've read many, many NDE's and a lot have common characteristics with underlying motives towards the promotion of a religion.
Indeed, many of these stories are used as a prostletizing tool by evangelicals.


Another thing; There is nearly always something left out, so that the reader, once he/she is interested and wanting more information, or answers as to what happened next, are left either with silence, or are encouraged to buy something.

Finally, if there is an afterlife, then great!
If there is'nt, then great! Because I will be the last person to find out i'm dead. And I'm not going to worry about what comes hereafter when i'm living now.

Someone once said that a person who lives his/her life, looking forward to the next one, isnt living at all, but is worshipping death.

Well said

[Rozzy]

One thing fore sure Atheist, we are all going to find out if God is real or not.

I am putting my wager on that he is, if I am wrong I have lost nothing , if you are wrong you have lost everything. :cool:

[soundofmusic]

Hmmm.....
But if there is no God, how did people come to be? Evolution just makes no sense to me. If you believe in the existence of God and reject Him, you would just be embracing pain and suffering. Or if you believe there is no life after death, how pointless and meaningless life would be! If I believed that, I think I would die of depression


I believe the difficulty humans have is that since we exist in a time frame; we believe everything, except the Christian god, also exists in time. Therefore we believe that everything had to have had a beginning and end. Even so, Christians believe that God is everlasting to everlasting.
If one throws the time concept out the window; then things simply exist, and don't necessarily have an ending. A persons cellular sturcture breaks down; but perhaps there is more to a person than organs and flesh.
If one does believe in God and believes that his/her current life is meaningless and pointless; they are spitting in his face! Life is a gift, health is a gift, if we have no preordained purpose; then the least we can do is make our life a blessing to our fellow man.

[blazeofglory]

One thing fore sure Atheist, we are all going to find out if God is real or not.

I am putting my wager on that he is, if I am wrong I have lost nothing , if you are wrong you have lost everything. :cool:

Rozzy, your ideas are rosy, beautiful

[The Atheist]

One thing fore sure Atheist, we are all going to find out if God is real or not.

I am putting my wager on that he is, if I am wrong I have lost nothing , if you are wrong you have lost everything. :cool:

Ah, Pascal!

Pascal's Wager is often given as a reason to believe in god/s. Pascal mused that if the rewards of heaven are infinite, then given our incredibly short lives, if the odds of there being a god are > 0, then you win by worshipping him.

I always say that it shows why Pascal wasn't a bookie.

There are several parts to the answer, and I'll give you the short version.

1 let's say the odds of a god existing is 0.001. (I'm being very generous here!)
2 Therefore the odds of there not being one are 99.999%
3 Whatever the payoff, I am taking a 99.999% chance of wasting a lifetime and whole lot of cash on a premise as silly as the Loch Ness Monster.

And many people do waste a lifetime worshipping idols. I shudder to think what might have been achieved by mankind if we hadn't collectively spent so much time thinking about, praying to, talking about and worshipping some god or other.

Pascal's odds are getting pretty damned thin, let me tell you.

There's another side to it as well.

If a god existed and was so vain and filled with self-doubt that he/she/it would exclude a person from anything solely because he didn't worship it, then I really wouldn't want to go there anyway.

[greendingy]

People, fellow humans, God is the same God whatever it may be for all of us...if it be an infinite source of energy that is beyond our brain functioning to fathom, let it be! Stop arguing about what YOU believe, since it is clear that none of us an KNOW for sure, no matter how high you've been; to the mountain top, to the light itself, or as the listener of a voice you need and may find helpful. Nothing on earth thus far has shown me a "God" worthy of the praise man gives it. We are exposed to a man made God. If one finds difficulty with this concept, this is, again, no reason to argue or defend something none of us are capable of fully knowing.

Accept your limitations within your brain capacity. Its called humility. Lets just believe in possible mystery, and if an athiest so chooses not to believe just like you, trust that such a conclusion comes from an examined and not so ignorant place as you might assume. It matters little what we believe, our actions are what matter most, believer, non believer, in betweener. Get your egos out of the way and start paying attention to what matters.

[The Atheist]

Get your egos out of the way and start paying attention to what matters.

Except that only works if we apply someone's set of values to figure out what matters.

[anzki4]

One thing fore sure Atheist, we are all going to find out if God is real or not.

I am putting my wager on that he is, if I am wrong I have lost nothing , if you are wrong you have lost everything. :cool:

And what if you happened to pick a wrong one?



1 let's say the odds of a god existing is 0.001. (I'm being very generous here!)
2 Therefore the odds of there not being one are 99.999%
3 Whatever the payoff, I am taking a 99.999% chance of wasting a lifetime and whole lot of cash on a premise as silly as the Loch Ness Monster.

I am quoting atheist and adding the fact that you have to pick just the correct god. How many are there? Pretty much I would say ;)

0.001 divided by the total number of gods, would make the chance of your god existing pretty minimal. Yet I am not too much for a science for the absolute meter for life, so if your faith brings you happiness, cherish it.

[Paulclem]

One thing fore sure Atheist, we are all going to find out if God is real or not.

I am putting my wager on that he is, if I am wrong I have lost nothing , if you are wrong you have lost everything. :cool:

That's one of the problems I have with a creator God. Why has an Atheist lost everything? The earthly conditions were created by God, and so the conditions for Atheism were too. Shouldn't the measure of a person be how much good they have done, how positive to others they are and how beneficial they have been whatever they believe? Paradise Lost talks of Lucifer's monstrous and self destructive pride, but if not being recognised and praised and worshipped to the exclusion of other Gods isn't pride, then I don't know what is.

Buddhism, for example, talks of unseen compassion - a compassion for others without recognition or credit, but just for its own sake. Surely that's a more Godly stance?

[The Atheist]

Shouldn't the measure of a person be how much good they have done, how positive to others they are and how beneficial they have been whatever they believe?

Alas, that is just a human approach to a divine question - gods don't use sloppy mortal morality.

You'll be ok, though - most christians believe your lot are just misguided, but goodly enough to let into the harpy place. :D

[Paulclem]

Alas, that is just a human approach to a divine question - gods don't use sloppy mortal morality.

You'll be ok, though - most christians believe your lot are just misguided, but goodly enough to let into the harpy place. :D

:lol:

I'm not convinced by ineffable nature. Anyway "I" won't be around. :smilielol5:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

So, from what I can gather, Atheist, by your definition of what an atheist is, I'm an atheist and not an agnostic, which is what I've been labeling myself as.

As far as I can tell, you don't believe in God, but you don't seem to ever say he doesn't exist. Atheists, as I've always assumed, lived under the assumption that there was no God, no afterlife; that there's nothing more than what we can sense.

As an agnostic, I don't believe in God, but that doesn't make me consider that there may be a God, and I may be wrong. Every atheist I've ever met believes (yes, I use "believes" with intent) that there is no God, and is certain of this.

Add to this that the OED definition (which I know you discount, but I offer it up anyways) of "agnostic" is:

"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God"

The bolded part seems to describe your belief to a tee, as shown by this statement:



It's really very, very simple; an atheist does not believe in god/s, a position which requires no faith at all.

[The Atheist]

As an agnostic, I don't believe in God, but that doesn't make me consider that there may be a God, and I may be wrong. Every atheist I've ever met believes (yes, I use "believes" with intent) that there is no God, and is certain of this.

Add to this that the OED definition (which I know you discount, but I offer it up anyways) of "agnostic" is:

"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God"

The bolded part seems to describe your belief to a tee, as shown by this statement:

You're onto it, yes you're an atheist!

If you look at the OED description of agnosticism, it is really quite senseless:

nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena

Making a statement that nothing can be known is about as unequivocal as possible and therefore more of a faith position than many theists. I'm not sure why dictionaries have such trouble defining atheism & agnosticism. Dawkins manages it easily and he's nobody's lexicographer. Agnosticism should be the simple "don't know" second meaning given that most people use it as.

I'm surprised you say that every atheist you've met is a definite believer in the non-existence of god, because I converse with hundreds of atheists and only a very small percentage make that statement. The hardest of hardline atheists usually uses Dawkins' 6.9 on the 7-point scale to signify their level of disbelief.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, it doesn't just say nothing can be known, it says, "nothing can be known ... beyond material phenomena."

And, every atheist I've ever talked to amounts to about three, and we really didn't get into a deep philosophical discussion, so your numerous discussions definitely amount to more than mine.

So, what are the differences between agnosticism and atheism, then?

[The Atheist]

So, what are the differences between agnosticism and atheism, then?

Not much. Mostly in the minds of agnostics who [very briefly]:

A Don't like being called atheists (which unless they believe in a god, they are)

B Tend to be religious apologists, because "we don't know" means we should be more tolerant of religion.

Atheists tend not to stand for that kind of nonsense. (and there are a couple of threads which expand on the above if you're that way inclined)

:D

There might be a complicating factor in that many liberal theists actively support and claim agnosticism. I just don't like fence-sitting myself.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

A friend of mine, an atheist, explained it to me that there are different degrees of atheism. He says the majority are Agnostic Atheists, which is what you've described: Those who don't believe in a god, but don't claim to know that a god doesn't exist. The other end of the spectrum has the Strong Atheist, the one that is 99% certain that there is no God (my friend also says he has not met any atheist who is willing to say there is 100% chance that there is no God).

[The Atheist]

The other end of the spectrum has the Strong Atheist, the one that is 99% certain that there is no God

That would include me.


(my friend also says he has not met any atheist who is willing to say there is 100% chance that there is no God).

There you go. They're rarer than you think - especially outside of high school.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

There you go. They're rarer than you think - especially outside of high school.

:lol:

I must say, this has all been very enlightening.